DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 7/10/25, Applicant, on 10/16/25, amended claims. Claims 1-4, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to a system comprising a processor performing operations which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites–
“An evaluation parking system comprising:
…perform operations which comprise:
determining, …, that an evaluator is on leave;
based on evaluation tasks assigned to the evaluator:
with an evaluator…, receiving a first user input to select a first evaluation task for reassignment…;
…, in response to selection of the first evaluation task for reassignment…
Receiving a click…
In response to receiving the click… pushing the first evaluation task for reassignment to the interaction distribution system ;
…
retrieving, …, evaluation tasks selected by the evaluator for reassignment, or
parking, …., the first evaluation task or the second evaluation task to an interaction sample segment …;
obtaining,…, from the interaction sample segment…the first evaluation task or the second evaluation task; and
reassigning, … to an available evaluator, the first evaluation task or the second evaluation task in an evaluation task assignment ...”
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing relationships between people – assigning tasks to supervisors/people to evaluate other employees at performing their jobs and reassigning tasks when the supervisors are on vacation or “on leave” to available supervisors). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements that are:
An evaluation parking 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:
determining, by an interaction distribution system, that an evaluator is on leave;
“with an evaluator GUI…with the evaluator GUI”, in response to selection of the first evaluation task for reassignment, displaying a park evaluation button;
“with the evaluator GUI, receiving a click” on the park evaluation “button,”
“in response to the click on the park evaluation button,” pushing the first evaluation task for reassignment to the interaction distribution system;
storing the first evaluation task in a Structured Query Language (SQL) database in a JavaScript Objection Notification (JSON) format;
querying the SQL database to retrieve the first evaluation task;
parking, by the interaction distribution system, the first evaluation task to an interaction sample segment datastore;
obtaining, by the interaction distribution system from the interaction sample segment datastore, the first evaluation task; and
reassigning, by the interaction distribution system to available evaluators, the first evaluation task in an evaluation task assignment datastore.”
(MPEP 2106.05f applies – limitations in claim involve a computer, machine learning, and sending notifications to a user device, and is considered “apply it” [the abstract idea] on a computer; merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) and having two datastores and graphical user interface with a “button”; database being “SQL” that is queried, where tasks stored in JSON formats, are considered “field of use” MPEP 2106.05h.
Accordingly, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor/computer, computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions executed by the processor/computer, and “datastores”; and database being “SQL” that is queried, where tasks stored in the JSON format, to execute operations are MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h) (for various GUI features that recite “button” to receive selections; use of SQL and JSON format database is a Standard published by ISO (International Organization for Standardization), see e.g. SQL/JSON 2016 Standard: ISO/IEC 19075-6:2017, 19075-6:2021, 21778:2017. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is not patent eligible. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In addition, the steps involving parking tasks in an “interaction sample segment datastore” and having reassigned tasks in an “evaluation task assignment datastore” are viewed as conventional functions at step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05d(II)(iv) - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306).
Independent claim 10 is directed to a method at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one, 2a, prong 2, and step 2b. The limitations of “by an interaction distribution system” are viewed as “apply it on a computer” at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b. The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 above. In addition/alternatively, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea because:
with a supervisor…, receiving a first user input to select a criterion of a parking configuration, wherein the criterion of the parking configuration comprises instructions to park a first evaluation task that (1) has not been acted on in a first number of days or (2) is going to expire in a second number of days,
…, receiving a second user input to enter the first number of days or the second number of days,
in response to the first user input and the second user input, saving the criterion of the parking configuration…;
…retrieve the parking configuration;
reading, …, the parking configuration and
determining, by the interaction distribution system, that the second evaluation task meet a criterion of the parking configuration;
…
receiving, by the interaction distribution system, an assignment of the first evaluation task from an evaluation task assignment datastore, wherein the assignment comprises a quality plan occurrence ID, an evaluator ID, a segment ID, an agent ID, and an evaluator status;
parking, …, the first evaluation task to an interaction sample segment… , wherein the parked first evaluation task comprises the quality plan occurrence ID, the evaluator ID, the segment ID, the agent ID, and a segment start time
obtaining,…, from the interaction sample segment…the first evaluation task; and
reassigning, … to an available evaluator, the first evaluation task in an evaluation task assignment;
updating, …, the assignment of the first evaluation task in the evaluation task assignment…, wherein the updated assignment comprises the quality plan occurrence ID, the evaluator ID, the segment ID, the agent ID, and the evaluator status.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing relationships between people – assigning tasks to supervisors/people to evaluate other employees at performing their jobs and reassigning tasks when the supervisors are on vacation or “on leave” to available supervisors, and having plans, evaluator IDs, segment IDs, agent (i.e. people/workers), and evaluator status). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements that are:
“determining, by an interaction distribution system, that an evaluator is on leave; …
“with a supervisor GUI,” receiving a first user input to select a criterion of a parking configuration, wherein the criterion of the parking configuration comprises instructions to park a first evaluation task that (1) has not been acted on in a first number of days or (2) is going to expire in a second number of days,
“with a supervisor GUI”, receiving a second user input to enter the first number of days or the second number of days,
in response to the first user input and the second user input, saving the criterion of the parking configuration in a database;
querying the database to retrieve the parking configuration;
…[each step is interpreted as “by a computer” with “by an interaction distribution system”]…
Storing the first evaluation task in the Structured Query Language (SQL) database in a JavaScript Object Notification (JSON) format;
querying the SQL database to retrieve the first evaluation task;
…
parking, by the interaction distribution system, the first evaluation task or the second evaluation task to an interaction sample segment datastore…;
obtaining, by the interaction distribution system from the interaction sample segment datastore, the first evaluation task; and
reassigning, by the interaction distribution system to available evaluators, the first evaluation task in the evaluation task assignment datastore;
updating, by the interaction distribution system, the assignment of the first evaluation task in the evaluation task assignment…, wherein the updated assignment comprises the quality plan occurrence ID, the evaluator ID, the segment ID, the agent ID, and the evaluator status.”
(MPEP 2106.05f applies – limitations in claim involve a computer, machine learning, and sending notifications to a user device, and is considered “apply it” [the abstract idea] on a computer; merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) and having two datastores and graphical user interface with a “button”; database being “SQL” that is queried, where tasks stored in JSON formats, are considered “field of use” MPEP 2106.05h.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 16 is directed to an article of manufacture at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b.
Claims 2, 11, and 17 narrow the abstract idea by stating the tasks are distributed or given to the different people/evaluators/supervisors. Claims 3, 12, and 18 narrow the abstract idea by stating the tasks are terminated/distributed while the evaluator/person is on leave. Claims 4, 13, and 19 narrow the abstract idea by stating the person updates their leave status. To any extent there is an additional storage or software module for “leave management system,” this is viewed as “apply it on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b.
Claim 9 narrows the abstract idea by stating the tasks of evaluating performance occur periodically. Additional elements of saving the determined evaluation tasks in the “datastore” as rejected for the same reasons as step 2a, prong 2 and step 2B above as “apply it on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h).
Claim 15 narrows the abstract idea by further having a person with a title of “manager” have a plan for how the tasks will be assigned.
Claim 21 narrows the abstract idea by stating that the reason tasks are parked is evaluator is “on leave”, causing tasks to get automatically re-routed or parked.
Claim 22 narrows the abstract idea by further having a person with a title of “manager” have a plan for how the tasks will be assigned.
Claim 23 narrows the abstract idea by further having each evaluator receive segments of tasks as per the plan, such as “evenly” across the evaluators, or in some other fashion. To extent computer is used to distribute/send, it is at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2B above as “apply it on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h).
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 15-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyas (US 10,616,413) and Schaad (US 2007/0016465) and Soni (US 20180152407).
Concerning claim 1, Vyas discloses:
An evaluation parking system (Vyas ‘413 – see col. 6, lines 54-67 - The term “Quality Planner (QP)” as used herein refers to a Micro Service (MS) that enables quality plans management. Quality plans may randomly select agent interactions based on predefined criteria, and then distribute those interactions to evaluators for evaluation and review. When a Quality Plan is created it is provided with a data range … of the interaction call between an agent and a customer. Based on that data range, voice recording segments of call interactions may be retrieved from document-oriented tables. col. 12, lines 44-48 - the QP algorithm may receive a list of call interactions of agents from the Elastic search and then randomly pick an agent by assigning priority to the set of agents and then assign it to evaluators.
For “parking” - Schaad – see par 23 – delegator may choose to delegate the task; see par 27 - FIG. 1B is a diagrammatic representation of a Use Case model of the relationship between the delegator 10, the delegatee 12 and a revoked task 19, according to an example embodiment of the present invention. The task may be revoked before the delegate 12 performs the task 16, as shown in FIG. 1A, and as described in more detail herein; ) 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 (Vyas – see col. 4, lines 39-51 – computing system, or other electronic computing device, that manipulates and/or transforms data represented as physical (e.g., electronic) quantities within the computer's registers and/or memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computer's registers and/or memories or other information non-transitory storage medium (e.g., a memory) that may store instructions to perform operations and/or processes.
Schaad – see par 90 - FIG. 9 - FIG. 9 shows a diagrammatic representation of machine in the example form of a computer system 200 within which a set of instructions, for causing the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein, may be executed. See par 94 - The term "machine-readable medium" shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present invention, or that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying data structures utilized by or associated with such a set of instructions.):
determining, by an interaction distribution system, that an evaluator is… (Vyas – See col. 6, lines 54-67 – the term “Quality Planner (QP)” as used herein refers to a Micro Service (MS) that enables quality plans management from a centralized location. Quality plans may randomly select agent interactions based on predefined criteria, and then distribute those interactions to evaluators for evaluation and review. After a quality plan is created and activated by the QPMS, it samples interactions from the agents which are defined in the quality plan and send the relevant segments to evaluators for review; col. 13, lines 30-40 – evaluators have different priority for assignment).
Vyas discloses having evaluators with different priority for assignment.
Schaad discloses being “on leave”:
determining, by an interaction distribution system, that an evaluator is “on leave” (Schaad – see par 42 - An example of such a rule is where a delegator is out of the office and has activated an out of office rule, such that any incoming tasks are automatically delegated.).
Vyas and Schaad in combination disclose:
based on evaluation tasks assigned to the evaluator (Vyas – see col. 12, lines 26-28 - during the assignment phase the interactions may be assigned to the list of assigned evaluators.)
Vyas discloses having an output device and input device (See col. 10, lines 32-43).
Schaad discloses the next limitations:
with an evaluator graphical user interface (GUI), receiving a first user input to select a first evaluation task for reassignment (Schaad – see par 40, FIG. 3 – In an application program, task data, defining a task to be performed, is received in operation 32. This data may be typically entered by a principal via a user interface; see par 41 - Delegation data is received in operation 33, either via a user interface 34 or via a delegation module 35 and database.),
with the evaluator GUI, in response to selection of the first evaluation task for reassignment, displaying a park evaluation …that pushes the first evaluation task for reassignment to the interaction distribution system (Schaad see par 40-41, FIG. 3 – delegation module 35 includes information identifying a delegator and a delegate of the task; creator of the task may be the delegator; see par 42 - where a principal decides that a task should be performed by another principal or delegatee, the principal or delegator delegates the main task to a delegatee by entering the relevant information via the user interface. This may be an ad hoc delegation. Alternatively, the delegation module 35 may obtain delegation module data 104 from the database 100, where a particular rule determines that a task should automatically be delegated to a delegatee. An example of such a rule is where a delegator is out of the office and has activated an out of office rule, such that any incoming tasks are automatically delegated. )
Vyas and Schaad do not explicitly disclose the user interface having a “button” or similar interface element.
Soni discloses:
with the evaluator GUI, in response to selection of the first evaluation task for reassignment, displaying a park evaluation “button” (Soni – see FIG. 4C – “task delegator” pop-up – includes additional buttons to pick a responsible person (e.g. Kat Larsson); see par 67 - reading pane 406 further includes a “task control” 418. As described above, task control 418 may be selectable to indicate that a delegated task is associated with email 408. As should be appreciated, while task control 418 is shown as a check box, other types of controls may be provided (e.g., selectable buttons, icons, hyperlinks, and the like)).
with the evaluator GUI, receiving a click on the park evaluation button (Soni – See par 35 - the sender may indicate that the message is associated with a delegated task by selecting a “task” control, button, check box, and the like; see par 67 - As should be appreciated, while task control 418 is shown as a check box, other types of controls may be provided (e.g., selectable buttons, icons, hyperlinks, and the like).),
in response to the click on the park evaluation button, pushing the first evaluation task for reassignment to the interaction distribution system (Soni – see par 36 - task delegator 114 may identify one or more recipients of the message, a description of the delegated task, a deadline for the delegated task, a follow-up date for the delegated task, one or more documents associated with the delegated task (e.g., attached to the message), and the like. In some cases, a single recipient may be responsible for a delegated task).
Vyas discloses:
storing the first evaluation task in a Structured Query Language (SQL) database in a JavaScript Objection Notification (JSON) format (Applicant’s specification [0055] as published states “The agent recording or interaction metadata can be stored inside an elastic search as a document-oriented database that utilizes the JSON format.” Vyas discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification – see col. 3, lines 9-14 - the document-oriented database is Elastic Search (ES). ES is a document-oriented database that is designed to store, retrieve, and manage document-oriented or semi-structured data. Recorded data may be stored inside ES in JSON document form. See col. 3, lines 20-24 - the Indexer Micro-Service (MS) may be configured to store data read from the kinesis stream in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format using Index API in the document-oriented database. see col. 7, lines 17-32 - The term “Elastic Load Balancing (ELB)” as used herein refers to a load-balancing service in a cloud-based computing environment such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) deployments. The ELB may be attached for each Micro-Service (MS) instance. In a non-limiting example, for each database such as MySQL instance an ELB may be attached to it; col. 8, lines 59-67, col. 9, lines 1-2 - SBC 115 may calculate Mean Opinion Score (MOS) based on RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets and a predefined algorithm and store call detail records (CDRs) in a table-oriented database such as table-oriented database 125. The table-oriented database 125 may be for example, MySQL database;.),
querying the SQL database to retrieve the first evaluation task (Vyas See col. 9, lines 54-61 - … indexes the call records by using index API and after that for each call records there may be MOS available inside Elastic Search (ES) 135. The index API adds or updates a JSON document in a specific index, making it searchable. see FIG. 2A, col. 11, lines 5-10 - operation 225 may comprise extracting metadata related to the regulated network QoS of the recorded call interaction from a table-oriented database such as table-oriented database 125 in FIG. 1A. The table-oriented database may be for example, MySQL database; col. 13, lines 19-29 - According to some embodiments, in the sampling phase, retrieving the agent's recording segments from the Elastic Search (ES) as per sampling factor and put record inside Sampled Segment table. Sampling factor is the count of total number of segments per agent and quality planner MS will pass sampling factor distribution data collected from the preparation phase to MCR Search MS and accordingly MCR Search will query ES to retrieve the information of agent's recording segments in which MOS may be stored as parameter for each segment.)
retrieving, by the interaction distribution system, the first evaluation task selected by the … reassignment (Vyas – Col. 13, lines 9-18 - According to some embodiments the collected distribution data may include: number of days passed since the quality plan occurrence started; number of interactions that should have been assigned by now for each agent; number of interactions that were already assigned for each agent in the plan and set agent priority; total number of interaction to assign in current distribution cycle; the time period of the distribution cycle; if quality plan completion period has reached; number of interactions that have been assigned for each evaluator), or
Vyas discloses storing the evaluations in a JSON format and querying using SQL (See col. 3, 13) and collecting data on “number of days passed since quality plan started” as well as priority for agents and evaluators (See col. 13).
Schaad discloses:
retrieving, by the interaction distribution system, the first evaluation task selected “by the evaluator” for reassignment (Schaad – see par 42 - An example of such a rule is where a delegator is out of the office and has activated an out of office rule, such that any incoming tasks are automatically delegated; see par 47 - Additionally or alternatively, the delegated task may be manually assigned via the user input 34 (See FIG. 6, par 41) or automatically assigned to a subsequent delegatee by the delegation module 35 and subsequent delegation data may be received at operation 45.)
Schaad discloses:
parking, by the interaction distribution system, the first evaluation tasks or the second evaluation task to an interaction sample segment datastore (Schaad – see par 41 - Delegation data is received in operation 33, either via a user interface 34 or via a delegation module 35 and database. See par 66 - General task data 106 of the task includes task identification data (e.g., the name or ID of the task) and a task description (e.g., the set of instructions to be completed to perform the task). The general task data 106 further includes data identifying the subject of the task (e.g., the principal that has to perform the task), and data identifying the target of the task.);
obtaining, by the interaction distribution system from the interaction sample segment datastore, the first evaluation task (Schaad – see par 79, FIG. 8 - system 160 comprises a task management application 161 and a database 100, the database 100 containing data relating to the task 106 and/or 108, data relating to delegation of the task 104, data relating to the revocation task 110, and review data 112..); and
reassigning, by the interaction distribution system to an available evaluator, the first evaluation task in an evaluation task assignment datastore (Schaad see par 28 - Further, the delegator may want to revoke the task from the delegatee 12 in instances where the delegatee 12 has an illness and/or an absence, in order to allow for continuation of work. See par 65 – delegation module data (delegation data) includes information identifying delegate who takes over responsibility to perform task; date and time when task was delegated; see par 80, FIG. 8 - The task management application 161 has a user interface 166 that may be used by a principal 162 to input data for use by the task management application 161. For example, the delegator may use the user interface 166 to input task data relating to a task to be performed. The user interface 166 may further be used by the delegatee to complete the task or may be used by the delegator to complete the review task).
Vyas, Schaad, and Soni are analogous art as they are directed to assigning tasks to people (see Vyas Abstract, Col. 11, lines 63-67 – assign interactions to evaluators; Schaad Abstract, par 42; Soni par 25 – delegating tasks). 1) Vyas discloses having evaluators with different priority for assignment (Col. 13, lines 13-40). Schaad improves upon Vyas by disclosing delegating tasks (See par 23, 27), delegators can be “out of the office” (See par 42); by activating out of office rule (See par 42); that one can “manually” assign a delegated task (See par 47); as well as having rules or time periods for when delegation of tasks can occur (See par 48-49). Schaad also improves upon Vyas by having different databases and delegation modules (See par 41) along with task data (See par 79) and delegation data (See par 79). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include “out of office” rules for reassigning tasks and manually assigning tasks as well as databases with task and delegation data to efficiently improve upon the assignment of agent interactions to evaluators in Vyas. 2) Vyas discloses having an output device and input device (See col. 10, lines 32-43). Schaad improves upon Vyas by disclosing user interfaces for delegating tasks (See par 40-42). Soni improves upon Vyas and Schaad by disclosing selectable buttons and other elements in a graphical user interface (See e.g. FIG. 4C). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include graphical user interface elements or buttons for delegating tasks to efficiently improve upon the evaluation of agent interactions in Vyas and the user interfaces for delegating tasks in Schaad. 3) Vyas discloses storing the evaluations in a JSON format and querying using SQL (See col. 3, 13) and collecting data on “number of days passed since quality plan started” as well as priority for agents and evaluators (See col. 13). Schaad improves upon Vyas by disclosing user interfaces for delegating tasks (See par 40-42), and storing in a database a set of rules that govern delegations (See par 60). Soni improves upon Vyas and Schaad by disclosing delegating task being stored in a database in any suitable data structure (See par 47, 63). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include storing data in data structures for delegating tasks to efficiently improve upon the assignment of interactions to evaluators using JSON in Vyas and the user interfaces for delegating tasks in Schaad.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assignment of interactions to evaluators in Vyas to further have reassignments for out of office and data for delegated tasks as disclosed in Schaad, and to further have graphical user interface elements for delegating tasks and data structures for delegating tasks in Soni, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Concerning independent claim 10, Vyas, Schaad, and Soni disclose:
A method for updating evaluation assignments ([same as cl. 1 above] - Vyas ‘413 – see col. 6, lines 54-67 - Quality plans may randomly select agent interactions based on predefined criteria, and then distribute those interactions to evaluators for evaluation and review. When a Quality Plan is created it is provided with a data range … of the interaction call between an agent and a customer. Based on that data range, voice recording segments of call interactions may be retrieved from document-oriented tables. col. 12, lines 44-48 - the QP algorithm may receive a list of call interactions of agents from the Elastic search and then randomly pick an agent by assigning priority to the set of agents and then assign it to evaluators), which comprises:
determining, by an interaction distribution system that an evaluator is… (same as cl. 1 above - Vyas – See col. 6, lines 54-67 – the term “Quality Planner (QP)” as used herein refers to a Micro Service (MS) that enables quality plans management from a centralized location. Quality plans may randomly select agent interactions based on predefined criteria, and then distribute those interactions to evaluators for evaluation and review. After a quality plan is created and activated by the QPMS, it samples interactions from the agents which are defined in the quality plan and send the relevant segments to evaluators for review; col. 13, lines 30-40 – evaluators have different priority for assignment).
Vyas discloses having evaluators with different priority for assignment.
Schaad discloses being “on leave”:
determining, by an interaction distribution system, that an evaluator is “on leave” (Schaad – see par 42 - An example of such a rule is where a delegator is out of the office and has activated an out of office rule, such that any incoming tasks are automatically delegated.)
Vyas and Schaad and Soni in combination disclose:
from evaluation tasks assigned to the evaluator (Vyas – see col. 12, lines 26-28 - during the assignment phase the interactions may be assigned to the list of assigned evaluators.)
with a supervisor GUI (Vyas – See Col. 12, lines 16-20 - A user such as a manager may define a Quality Plan (QP) and assign a set of evaluators to the QP.
See also Soni – see par 27 - system 100 may include one or more client computing devices 104 (e.g., client computing devices 104A and 104B) that may execute a client version of a task delegation manager capable of tracking the progress of delegated tasks), receiving a first user input to select a criterion of a parking configuration, wherein the criterion of the parking configuration comprises instructions to park a first evaluation task that (1) has not been acted on in a first number of days or (2) is going to expire in a second number of days (Applicant’s FIG. 6 gives example of support
Schaad– For “parking” - see par 23 – delegator may choose to delegate the task; see par 24- a “review” task based on evidence created on completion of the task, in a different topic; see par 27 - FIG. 1B is a diagrammatic representation of a Use Case model of the relationship between the delegator 10, the delegatee 12 and a revoked task 19, according to an example embodiment of the present invention. The task may be revoked before the delegate 12 performs the task 16, as shown in FIG. 1A, and as described in more detail herein; see par 41 – Delegation data is received in operation 33, either via a user interface 34 or via a delegation module 35 and database. See par 42 - An example of such a rule is where a delegator is out of the office and has activated an out of office rule, such that any incoming tasks are automatically delegated. See par 49 - It is foreseen that other rules may restrict the delegation of tasks within a time period prior to the deadline of completing the task.
See also Soni par 36 - In some cases, a delegated task may be associated with a hard deadline; whereas in other cases, a delegated task may be associated with a soft deadline; par 50 – delegated tasks selectable to display one or more parameters associated with delegated task (e.g. deadline, follow-up schedule) ),
with a supervisor GUI, receiving a second user input to enter the first number of days or the second number of days (Schaad - see par 49 - It is foreseen that other rules may restrict the delegation of tasks within a time period prior to the deadline of completing the task),
Examiner notes, Applicant’s specification states that the content in the JSON format is the “Parking configuration 206” that includes content such as “status of evaluator being “active” or “on leave”; other possible rules such as “auto park interaction when task expired after 3 days”. (See [0051-0054] and Table 1).
Vyas discloses storing the evaluations in a JSON format and querying using SQL (See col. 3, 13) and collecting data on “number of days passed since quality plan started” as well as priority for agents and evaluators (See col. 13). Vyas in combination Schaad discloses the specific criterion for parking from second user input and third user input:
in response to the first user input and the second user input, saving the parking configuration in a database (Schaad – See par 42 - the delegation module 35 may obtain delegation module data 104 from the database 100, where a particular rule determines that a task should automatically be delegated to a delegatee. An example of such a rule is where a delegator is out of the office and has activated an out of office rule, such that any incoming tasks are automatically delegated. see par 60 - The database 134 is also used to store the set of rules that govern delegations, and in particular, subsequent delegations;
see also Soni – shows “save” button in Task delegator in FIG. 4C where task delegation also can include priority data; see par 47, 63 - For example, the delegated task may be stored in any suitable memory or database in any suitable data structure. In some cases, the data structure may include one or more fields corresponding to one or more parameter types that are populated with one or more parameter values. For example, parameter type “deadline” may be populated with parameter value “Jun. 9, 2015” within a corresponding field of a data structure storing the delegated task. In further cases, an interface for a delegated task may be generated based on a data structure corresponding to the delegated task. That is, parameter types corresponding to fields stored in a data structure may be provided in an interface for receiving parameter values as input from the message sender.)
Examiner notes, Applicant’s specification states that the content in the JSON format is the “Parking configuration 206” that includes content such as “status of evaluator being “active” or “on leave”; other possible rules such as “auto park interaction when task expired after 3 days”. (See [0051-0054] and Table 1).
Vyas, Schaad, and Soni disclose:
querying the database to retrieve the parking configuration (Vyas – see col. 3, lines 9-14 - the document-oriented database is Elastic Search (ES). ES is a document-oriented database that is designed to store, retrieve, and manage document-oriented or semi-structured data. Recorded data may be stored inside ES in JSON document form; See col. 9, lines 54-61 - … once the data record arrives inside kinesis stream then the Indexer MS 170 indexes the call records by using index API and after that for each call records there may be MOS available inside Elastic Search (ES) 135. The index API adds or updates a JSON document in a specific index, making it searchable. see FIG. 2A, col. 11, lines 5-10 - operation 225 may comprise extracting metadata related to the regulated network QoS of the recorded call interaction from a table-oriented database such as table-oriented database 125 in FIG. 1A. The table-oriented database may be for example, MySQL database; col. 13, lines 19-29 - According to some embodiments, in the sampling phase, retrieving the agent's recording segments from the Elastic Search (ES) as per sampling factor and put record inside Sampled Segment table;
see also Schaad par 48, FIG. 3 - At operation 46, the subsequent delegation data may be compared to a set of rules (within database 100 on FIG. 8) to determine whether the delegation is allowable.)
Vyas, Schaad, and Soni disclose:
reading, by the interaction distribution system, the criterion of the parking configuration (Schaad – See par 48 - At operation 46, the subsequent delegation data may be compared to a set of rules (within database 100 on FIG. 8) to determine whether the delegation is allowable. See par 49 - the set of rules may include a limitation on the number of subsequent delegations which is allowable. The set of rules may also specify that a review task can never be delegated and should therefore be completed by the respective delegator. In a further embodiment, the set of rules may disqualify the delegator or subsequent delegators from being subsequent delegatees. It is foreseen that other rules may restrict the delegation of tasks within a time period prior to the deadline of completing the task. Other rules may include a limit to the number of times a task may be delegated (depth of delegation chain), and a limit on cycles in the delegation chain, e.g., a task not to come back to the initially delegating principal.), and
determining, by the interaction distribution system, that the first evaluation task meets a criterion of the parking configuration (Schaad – See par 48 - At operation 46, the subsequent delegation data may be compared to a set of rules (within database 100 on FIG. 8) to determine whether the delegation is allowable. see par 49 - In a further embodiment, the set of rules may disqualify the delegator or subsequent delegators from being subsequent delegatees. It is foreseen that other rules may restrict the delegation of tasks within a time period prior to the deadline of completing the task. As further examples, rules may specify that a clerk may only delegate within his branch, or that a senior sales representative may only delegate to staff in his sales region. see par 51 - In the event that the subsequent delegation is allowable according to the set of rules, subsequent delegation data is stored at operation 48 and the process returns to the review task created at operation 36.);
storing the first evaluation task in a Structured Query Language (SQL) database in a JavaScript Object Notification (JSON) format - Applicant’s specification [0055] as published states “The agent recording or interaction metadata can be stored inside an elastic search as a document-oriented database that utilizes the JSON format.” Vyas – discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification – see col. 3, lines 9-14 - the document-oriented database is Elastic Search (ES). Recorded data may be stored inside ES in JSON document form. See col. 3, lines 20-24 - (JSON) format using Index API in the document-oriented database. see col. 7, lines 17-32 - The term “Elastic Load Balancing (ELB)” as used herein refers to a load-balancing service in a cloud-based computing environment such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) deployments. The ELB may be attached for each Micro-Service (MS) instance. In a non-limiting example, for each database such as MySQL instance an ELB may be attached to it; see col. 7, lines 42-44 - The term “JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format” as used herein refers to a lightweight format for storing and transporting data. col. 8, lines 59-67, col. 9, lines 1-2 - MySQL database),
querying the SQL database to retrieve the first evaluation task (Vyas - See col. 9, lines 54-61 - … once the data record arrives inside kinesis stream then the Indexer MS 170 indexes the call records by using index API and after that for each call records there may be MOS available inside Elastic Search (ES) 135. The index API adds or updates a JSON document in a specific index, making it searchable. see FIG. 2A, col. 11, lines 5-10 - operation 225 may comprise extracting metadata related to the regulated network QoS of the recorded call interaction from a table-oriented database such as table-oriented database 125 in FIG. 1A. The table-oriented database may be for example, MySQL database; col. 13, lines 19-29 - According to some embodiments, in the sampling phase, retrieving the agent's recording segments from the Elastic Search (ES) as per sampling factor and put record inside Sampled Segment table. Sampling factor is the count of total number of segments per agent and quality planner MS will pass sampling factor distribution data collected from the preparation phase to MCR Search MS and accordingly MCR Search will query ES to retrieve the information of agent's recording segments in which MOS may be stored as parameter for each segment).
receiving, by the interaction distribution system, an assignment of the first evaluation task from an evaluation task assignment datastore, wherein the assignment comprises a quality plan occurrence ID, an evaluator ID, a segment ID, an agent ID, … (Applicant’s example is in Tables 1-3 – Plan Occurrence ID = P1; Evaluator ID = E1, E2, E3; Segment ID = S1, NULL, S2; Agent ID = A1, Null, A2; Evaluator status = Available, On Leave
Vyas ‘413 discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification – see col. 6, lines 54-67, Col. 7, lines 1-6 - The term “Quality Planner (QP)” as used herein refers to a Micro Service (MS) that enables quality plans management from a centralized location. Quality plans may randomly select agent interactions based on predefined criteria, and then distribute those interactions to evaluators for evaluation and review. After a quality plan is created and activated (disclosing “quality plan occurrence ID”) by the QPMS, it samples interactions from the agents which are defined in the quality plan and send the relevant segments to evaluators for review. When a Quality Plan is created it is provided with a data range of the duration of the interaction call between an agent and a customer (disclosing “segment start time”). Based on that data range, voice recording segments of call interactions may be retrieved from document-oriented tables in the cloud-based computing environment. For example, when retrieving x interactions (disclosing “segment ID”) of agent x, y interactions of agent y, z interactions of agent z and so on from the database in the cloud-based computing environment, the QP may randomly select any agent from the retrieved agents (disclosing “agent ID”) and then apply filter criteria to distribute the interaction call to an evaluator which is one of a plurality of evaluators; see col. 11, lines 63-67, Col. 2, lines 1-9 - The required number of interactions per agent may be assigned equally during the quality plan period. the distribution process may be activated by the QP service scheduler every predefined amount of time e.g., 2 hours for each distribution process (disclosing segment start time));
Schaad discloses “evaluator status”:
receiving, by the interaction distribution system, an assignment of the first evaluation task from an evaluation task assignment datastore, wherein the assignment comprises a… “evaluator status” (Applicant’s example is in Tables 1-3 – Evaluator status = Available, On Leave
Schaad discloses the limitations based on broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification – See par 28 - The senior accountant or delegator may have some free time available and may want to perform the task himself/herself; Further, the delegator may want to revoke the task from the delegatee 12 in instances where the delegatee 12 has an illness and/or an absence, in order to allow for continuation of work. See par 42 - he delegation module 35 may obtain delegation module data 104 from the database 100, where a particular rule determines that a task should automatically be delegated to a delegatee. An example of such a rule is where a delegator i