DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/055,694 filed on 11/15/2022, in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on April 01, 2026. 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 April 01, 2026, 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 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
5. Applicant's arguments filed April 01, 2026, have been fully considered.
6. Applicant submits “The claims are amended to recite, in part: monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; and storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals. Each of these newly added features cites specific technical operations involving real-time event/interaction monitoring, state transition tracking of thousands of interactions, and/or memory-based storage with configurable parameter triggers. These operations are inherently computer-implemented and cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper as recited. A human is incapable of completing such an analysis to achieve the same results due to (1) the extremely large transitory data sets of events and activities associated with a work item, and (2) the need to retain the state of a work item in memory over the course of time to ensure correct accounting of activities that occur for a single work item with a long lifespan, i.e., over multiple time intervals. Specification at Paragraph [0029]. For example, a typical user of the system has millions of state changes over thousands of interactions that must be monitored over many intervals. The interactions may have a life span of several hours or several days when the interaction is asynchronous with long pauses between activities of the customer and/or the agent. The step of "storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals" as recited in claims 1, 10, and 16 describes a specific technical mechanism for state management that requires computer memory and cannot be accomplished mentally.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, page 11]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “Each of these newly added features cites specific technical operations involving real-time event/interaction monitoring, state transition tracking of thousands of interactions, and/or memory-based storage with configurable parameter triggers. These operations are inherently computer-implemented and cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper as recited,” it is noted that whether a human could perfume the claimed operations at scale is not determinative of eligibility. The focus is on the nature of the steps themselves. I this instance, the newly presented “monitoring” and “storing” describe forms of observation, evaluation, and conditional recordkeeping. These activities can be conceptualized as mental processes, even if the claimed system executes them over large datasets.
Moreover, the “storing…in memory until configurable parameters are met” limitation odes not meaningfully limit the clams. It broadly recites retaining information subject to conditions, which is analogous to keeping records and applying rules for when to update or carry forward information. The claim does not specify how this storage is technically implemented or identify any improvement to computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
7. Applicant submits “the claims do not recite an abstract idea required under Step 2A, Prong One.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, page 12]
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; monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; storing the non-aggregated real-time events until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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; monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; storing the non-aggregated real-time events until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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.”
Moreover, it is noted that claim 1 has been also 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; monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; storing the non-aggregated real-time events until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
8. Applicant submits “the claims as amended integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Specifically, the present systems and methods 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, thereby reducing processing efficiency (Specification at Paragraph [0029]).” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, page 13]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, Applicant submits “the claims as amended integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific technical solution to a technical problem. Specifically, the present systems and methods 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, thereby reducing processing efficiency.” In response, it is noted that the additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory 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, memory, 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, memory, 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).
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.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “The amended claims recite "monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item" and "storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals." These features describe a specific technical mechanism that improves how workforce management systems process and track work items that span multiple time intervals” [Remarks at page 13], it is noted that the characterization of the amended limitations as “a specific technical mechanism” is not persuasive. The newly presented “"monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item" and "storing the non-aggregated…” are described at a high level of generality and correspond to collecting information and retaining it based on conditions. These functions amount to observation and conditional recordkeeping. The amended claim does not recite ant particular algorithm, data structure, or technical implementation for performing these steps, but instead relied on generic computer functionality to carry them out. Additionally, the assertion that these features improve how workforce management systems process work items across time intervals is not supported by the claim language as a technological improvement. The claimed operations merely use a computer to track and carry forward information over time for subsequent analysis, which is analogous to maintaining records across reporting periods. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “The operation of a computer is improved through the accurate 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]). This constitutes an improvement to computer functionality. Further, the solution recited in the amended claims, in whole and in each part, is deployed on a cloud computing platform to provide faster processing, elastic memory usage, and improved network security for processing millions of state changes for thousands of interactions whose life spans cross the course of a day, week and month (Specification at Paragraph [0033]).” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, page 14]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “the operation of a computer is improved through the accurate 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).
Moreover, Applicant’s reliance on deployment in a cloud computing platform providing faster processing, elastic memory, and improved security is also unpersuasive. The claim itself does not recite any specific cloud architecture, resource allocation technique or security mechanism. Instead, these are described only at ahigh level in the specification. Merely stating that the system may be cloud-based, as reflected in paragraph 0033, amounts to invoking a generic computing environment and does not impose a meaningful limitation to the claim. Generalized assertions of improved speed, scalability, or environment do not demonstrate a technological improvement to computer functionality. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “The claims do not merely recite generic computer components applying an abstract idea. Rather, the specific technical operations of monitoring state transitions, storing events in memory until configurable parameters are met, and triggering processing when work items span interval boundaries represent a particular technical implementation that improves the functioning of workforce management systems.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, page 14]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “the claims do not merely recite generic computer components applying an abstract idea. Rather, the specific technical operations of monitoring state transitions, storing events in memory until configurable parameters are met, and triggering processing when work items span interval boundaries represent a particular technical implementation that improves the functioning of workforce management systems,” it is noted that the steps of “monitoring” and ‘storing” describe data collection and conditional handling operations. These are expressed in result oriented terms without specifying how the monitoring is performed, how the data is structured in memory, or how the triggering mechanism is technically implemented. Therefore, they correspond to observation, evaluation, and conditional recordkeeping. Additionally, the asserted “improvement to workforce management systems” reflect an improving in the use of information for business purposes (i.e., staffing analysis), not an improvement to computer technology itself. The claim does not recite any change to the way the computer operates. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. 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; monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; and storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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 real-time monitoring of interactions and in computing staffing requirements for asynchronous and synchronous work items. Indeed, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, pages 15-16]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the combination of elements is not well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field of reducing inaccuracies in real-time monitoring of interactions and in computing staffing requirements for asynchronous and synchronous work items.” 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.
12. Applicant submits “The Office Action has not provided evidence that the specific claimed combination of monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions, storing events in memory until configurable parameters including interval boundary spanning are met, creating activity records with work items divided into multiple time intervals, and computing staff requirements using forecasts that exclude initially addressed work items from active work item counts was previously known or conventional in the field. In fact, the lack of a prior art based rejection is evidence that the Office believes the claimed combination was not known or conventional in the field.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 04/01/2026, pages 16-17]
In response to the argument that “the Office Action has not provided evidence that the specific claimed combination of monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions, storing events in memory until configurable parameters including interval boundary spanning are met, creating activity records with work items divided into multiple time intervals, and computing staff requirements using forecasts that exclude initially addressed work items from active work item counts was previously known or conventional in the field. In fact, the lack of a prior art based rejection is evidence that the Office believes the claimed combination was not known or conventional in the field,” the Examiner emphasizes that eligibility under §101 does not hinge on the specificity of any of the elements even if such specificity is deemed as novel, nonobvious, or innovative (which has not been shown in this instance since the argued claims are subject to a §102 rejection). 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).
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory 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; monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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, memory, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 1); a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, memory, 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, memory, 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 “storing” and “displaying…the forecasted second number…” steps are evaluated as additional elements, these steps amount 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, memory, and a workforce management (WFM) system (claim 1); a workforce management (WFM) user interface, a work item routing platform, memory, 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, memory, 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 “storing” 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) - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
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
17. 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 monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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 non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory 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; monitoring non-aggregated real-time events representing state transitions during a lifespan of each work item; storing the non-aggregated real-time events in memory until configurable parameters are met, wherein the configurable parameters include when the work item spans a configurable interval boundary across multiple time intervals; 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.
Bnayahu et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0101809 A1 – describes a method for real-time update of a Mobile Workforce Scheduling Problem.
Shirani, Ashraf I., Mohammed HA Tafti, and John F. Affisco. "Task and technology fit: a comparison of two technologies for synchronous and asynchronous group communication." Information & management 36.3 (1999): 139-150 – describes an experiment conducted to examine the interaction between task structure and technology to support synchronous and asynchronous group communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights