DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/055,694 filed on 11/15/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In the response filed July 28, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 16, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
4. Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim objections; accordingly, these objections have been removed.
5. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 10, and 16 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025, have been fully considered.
7. Applicant submits “The claimed invention does not fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity”.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/28/2025, page 11]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claim limitations “displaying an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving, from a user, a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; receiving a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items, wherein each work item is divided into more than three time intervals in the activity record; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; computing a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval; and displaying, to the user, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items,” when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One, are part of the abstract idea itself, i.e., are steps within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. For example, the steps for displaying an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving, from a user, a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; receiving a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items, wherein each work item is divided into more than three time intervals in the activity record; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; computing a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval; and displaying, to the user, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items cover embodiments for organizing human activity given that the sequence of activities pertaining to determining a staff requirement fall squarely within the realm of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” or “following rules or instructions,” as explained by the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea groping set forth in MPEP 2106.
Next, it is noted that the defined sequence of activities for determining a staff requirement, when read in light of the Specification, is plainly generated for the primary purpose of managing human behavior, i.e., staff, as discussed throughout the Specification (See at least paragraph 0020, e.g., “According to various embodiments, the present methods and systems analyze work item event streams to automatically decompose asynchronous and synchronous work items that span multiple time intervals for the purpose of creating interval-specific addressed and active volume counts, as well as handle (processing) time which occurred in the interval when the work item was addressed or active. Synchronous and asynchronous work items that have a lifespan longer than the smallest time interval (also referred to herein as the lowest common denominator) are decomposed into activity-based work history. The decomposed work activity pattern data is then fed into WFM forecast algorithms and staffing requirement calculations to render staffing patterns that represent the true interval-specific workload associated with asynchronous and synchronous work items.”). Therefore, the primary purpose of the claimed invention is unequivocally for determining staff requirements.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claims have been shown to recite an abstract idea via limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106 via limitations that set forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions. The Office maintains that the claims recite to an abstract idea falling under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity.”
8. Applicant submits “In addition, the claims cannot be considered to cover a mental process. At least the steps of displaying an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items cannot be performed in the human mind or on pen and paper.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/28/2025, page 11]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that claim 1 has been found to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Mental Processes” by reciting steps that can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper, which fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. The 101 rejection found the limitations in claim 1 to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” based on the limitations “displaying an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; receiving a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; computing a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval; and displaying the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items. These limitations recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. As claimed, the steps can be practically performed mentally, by a human evaluating information. Displaying an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item, receiving a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity, receiving historical event data for a plurality of work items, creating an activity record for each work item, specifying a first time interval, determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval, determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval, determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval, carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval, aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval, providing the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval, generating a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval, computing a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval, and displaying the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items encompass evaluation steps that can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation/judgement perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, these steps can be performed via human observation or perhaps by documenting the incorrect/duplicate data with the aid of pen and paper. These above noted steps describe data gathering, observation, and decision making. In particular, data is collected, data is analyzed, and data is evaluated to determining a staff requirement, which are a combination of “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.” Thus, the steps recite the abstract concept of “mental processes.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A Prong 1 are not persuasive because the claims have been shown to set forth or describe activities falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “in addition, the claims cannot be considered to cover a mental process. At least the steps of displaying an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items cannot be performed in the human mind or on pen and paper,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each step - presenting calculation options, receiving a selection, and displaying forecasted and actual work item numbers - can be carried out manually using basic tools like forms, tables, and written calculations. While a computer may enhance efficiency, the underlying steps involve routine mental processes and simple data handling that are performable without specialized technology. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “In the present application, the claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the recited system, steps, and non-transitory computer-readable media each improve technology by solving a long-standing issue of accurate representation of long duration asynchronous/synchronous work items for the purpose of calculating staffing requirements in advance of need. In addition, the operation of a computer is improved through the automation of a more granular analysis of how much work is performed and when the work time is actually applied to a work item that has a long lifespan to analyze past data to facilitate future predictive staffing calculations. Specification at Paragraph [0029].” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/28/2025, page 13]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant submits “in the present application, the claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the recited system, steps, and non-transitory computer-readable media each improve technology by solving a long-standing issue of accurate representation of long duration asynchronous/synchronous work items for the purpose of calculating staffing requirements in advance of need.” The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations, a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no processor, computer readable medium, work item routing platform, a workforce management system, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information about a staff requirement which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that an improvement was achieved, improving the process of determining a staff requirement, at most, seems to provide an improvement to a business process using generic computing elements, such that any incidental improvement achieved by automating the claim steps would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision).
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “the operation of a computer is improved through the automation of a more granular analysis of how much work is performed and when the work time is actually applied to a work item that has a long lifespan to analyze past data to facilitate future predictive staffing calculations,” it is noted that automating the claims steps with a processor of a generic computer is similar to simply adding the words “apply it,” which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. See, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “In the present case, the combination of elements of: displaying, via a workforce management (WFM) user interface, an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving, from a user via the WFM user interface, a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; receiving, from a work item routing platform, a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items, wherein each work item is divided into more than three time intervals in the activity record; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing, to a WFM system, the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating, by the WFM system, a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; computing, by the WFM system, a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items for example, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of reducing inaccuracies in computing staffing requirements for asynchronous and synchronous work items. Thus, independent claims 1, 10, and 16 amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/28/2025, pages 15-16]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the amended claims are not “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field.” In response, the Examiner emphasizes that unconventionality of the entire claimed invention, by itself, is insufficient to render a claim as eligible under §101. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec).
The Federal Circuit’s recent BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons Inc. decision (Aug. 15, 2018) plainly addressed this very argument, emphasizing that: “The relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” Therefore, Applicant’s suggestion that the entire claimed invention must be shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional to support a contention of patent ineligibility is not persuasive.
For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth in the updated §101 rejection set forth below, Applicant’s amendments and arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
11. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-9), method (claims 10-15), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 16-20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for determining staffing needs at an organization, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations which comprise: displaying, via a workforce management (WFM) user interface, an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving, from a user via the WFM user interface, a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; receiving, from a work item routing platform, a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items, wherein each work item is divided into more than three time intervals in the activity record; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing, to a WFM system, the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating, by the WFM system, a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; computing, by the WFM system, a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items. These steps are organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions, and also encompasses mental processes since the steps can also be performed mentally via human evaluation/judgement/opinion or perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of determining staffing needs at an organization, which falls under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations, a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 1); a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 10); computer-readable instructions executable by a processor, a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 16). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the “displaying…the forecasted second number…” step is evaluated as an additional element, this step amounts at most to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited are: a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations, a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 1); a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 10); computer-readable instructions executable by a processor, a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 16). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification acknowledges that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general purpose computer executing instructions to implement the invention (Specification at paragraph 0080). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
With respect to the “displaying…the forecasted second number…” step, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), nor add significantly more because such activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to recite details that narrow the same abstracts idea(s) recited in the independent claims, i.e., activities falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or Mental Processes abstract idea groupings as described in MPEP 2106, along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 recite steps for “wherein the work item routing platform comprises an automatic contact distributor (ACD),” “wherein the first time interval is 15 minutes to 30 minutes,” “wherein determining the total number of active work items in the first time interval comprises determining a total number of the plurality of work items that were focused on by a plurality of employees in the first time interval,” “wherein the plurality of employees are employed at a blended environment, and the operations further comprise normalizing the first time interval to a smallest time interval used in the blended environment,” “wherein the operations further comprise determining, for the work items not completed in the first time interval, a total number of active work items in the subsequent time interval,” “wherein the plurality of work items comprise an asynchronous work item, a synchronous work item, or a combination thereof, each asynchronous work item or synchronous work item having a handle time that exceeds the first time interval,” “wherein the plurality of work items comprise an asynchronous work item that is selected from an email, a chat, a post on a forum, a message on a messenger application, a post on a social networking site, a text, an in-app message, a search on a search engine, or a combination thereof,” “wherein the plurality of work items comprise a synchronous work item that is selected from a telephone conversation, an interactive voice response (IVR), an instant message, a video chat, a live meeting, or a combination thereof,” which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, and also can be accomplished mentally with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. Dependent claims 2 and 8 recite additional elements of: an automatic contact distributor, a messenger application, and a search engine. However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 16, the closest prior art, Stearns and Neuer, III et al., collectively teach features for receiving, from a work item routing platform, a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items, wherein each work item is divided into more than three time intervals in the activity record; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing, to a WFM system, the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating, by the WFM system, a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; and computing, by the WFM system, a staff requirement for the first time interval [See Office Action mailed 12/04/2024 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to amended independent claim 1, while Neuer et al. describes selecting an option to generate a schedule (col. 18, lines 59-67 & col. 19, lines 1-21) and describes excluding data in the forecast (col. 26, lines 61-67 & col. 27, lines 1-9, col. 27, lines 21-41), Stearns, Neuer et al., and the other prior art of record does not teach determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; generating, by the WFM system, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval; computing, by the WFM system, a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items and the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items.
Stearns, Neuer et al., and the other prior art of record describe various approaches for handling call center data and workforce management, but they do not teach the specific exclusion process as required by amended claims 1, 10, and 16. The references generally discuss techniques for filtering or excluding certain types of data, such as skewed historical call volumes (Boughton et al.), dynamically adjusting workforce levels based on actual work volume (Whitman JR.), and managing call handling data by removing older data as new data is collected (Stuart et al). These methods primarily focus on refining the data used for forecasting or adjusting staffing levels by excluding outliers or outdated data. In contrast, claim 1 recites a more intricate process including determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; generating, by the WFM system, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval; computing, by the WFM system, a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items and the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “An interval-specific, activity-based system comprising: a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the processor, to perform operations which comprise: displaying, via a workforce management (WFM) user interface, an option to calculate staffing requirements based on work activity or based on work item; receiving, from a user via the WFM user interface, a selection of calculating staffing requirements based on work activity; receiving, from a work item routing platform, a real-time event stream or historical event data for a plurality of work items; creating an activity record for each work item from the plurality of work items, wherein each work item is divided into more than three time intervals in the activity record; specifying a first time interval; determining a number of the plurality of work items that were initially addressed in the first time interval; determining a total number of active work items in the first time interval by excluding the plurality of work items initially addressed in the first time interval; determining which work items were not completed in the first time interval; carrying over work items not completed in the first time interval for analysis in a subsequent time interval; aggregating time spent working on the work items initially addressed in the first time interval and the active work items in the first time interval to determine a total handle time in the first time interval; providing, to a WFM system, the number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, the total number of active work items in the first time interval, and the total handle time in the first time interval; generating, by the WFM system, a forecast of a second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, a forecast of a second total number of active work items in the first time interval that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and a forecast of an average handle time (AHT) in the first time interval; computing, by the WFM system, a staff requirement for the first time interval using the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items, the forecasted second total number of active work items that excludes the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items in the first time interval, and the forecasted AHT for the first time interval; and displaying, to the user via the WFM user interface, the forecasted second number of initially addressed work items combined with the forecasted second number of active work items, an actual number of initially addressed work items, and an actual number of active work items,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 10 and 16), thus rendering claims 1-20 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wicaksono et al., Patent No.: US 9,906,648 B2 – describes a method and system for prediction of contact allocation, staff time distribution, and service performance metrics in a multi-skilled contact center operation environment.
Vairaktarakis, George L., Xiaoqiang Cai, and Chung-Yee Lee. "Workforce planning in synchronous production systems." European Journal of Operational Research 136.3 (2002): 551-572 – formulates and solves a workforce planning problem for general manufacturing systems.
Applicant's amendm