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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 10/28/2025, Applicant responded on 1/11/2026.
Claims 1-9, 11-12 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “…The Applicant asserts that the claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself…Current application provides operational modules which are not abstract but a fully functional distinct modules which cannot be performed by the human mind at the required speed and precision. The modules are the schedule quotient module which calculates a score based on real metrics like SLA variance, handle time, time-off requests, etc., agent quotient module evaluates agent-related factors such as adherence, absenteeism, tenure, skills, etc., SIS (Schedule Impact Score) module combines the above scores using a weighted formula, and the recommendation module drives auto- corrective actions.… the current application fixes schedules by using the prioritization and automated schedule correction. For example, as shown in Figs. 4A and 4B. Overstaffed schedules are identified, and agents are being removed. Understaffed schedules agents with required skills are added. Therefore, current application actively fixes schedules based on calculated priorities, executes corrective actions automatically, and supports quality management loops, proving that it is implementable, technical, and not abstract. Thus, the schedules are active schedules which are optimized in the WFM system in an order that is based on each schedule schedule-impact score… the claims reflect a real-time dynamic use of the derived schedule-impact score. For example, the displaying of the derived schedule-impact score of each schedule on a schedule management dashboard via the supervisor dashboard, as shown in Figs. 3. In another example, key inputs may be provided as regards 'Number of schedules per day with schedule impact score above threshold and number of schedules prioritization to take care' is provided. For example, in case of WFM since its understaffed on 15-08-2020, the WFM action of 'Get Agents for scheduling for impacted skills' is taken, as shown in Fig. 4B. Similarly various automated actions may be performance based on schedule impact score and the impacted parameter to help reducing the impact on the schedule, as shown in Fig. 8, in the application as-filed… The Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 12 include a link of the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment, by the checking of the schedule-impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions during the schedule-impact score related schedule, performing of realignment of routing of an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) system, and the optimizing schedules in the WFM system in an order that is based on each schedule schedule-impact score which also can't be practically performed in the human mind, as humans cannot for example compute the SIS for several schedules and also it is not scalable and in real time. Therefore, the above-mentioned additional elements represent a practical application, and any allegedly abstract elements recited in Applicant's claims are integrated into this practical application...” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations and elements claimed and argued here are directed to, … Overstaffed schedules are identified, and agents are being removed. Understaffed schedules agents with required skills are added. Therefore, current application actively fixes schedules based on calculated priorities, executes corrective actions automatically, and supports quality management loops…fixes schedules by using the prioritization and automated schedule correction…, which is are problems directed to abstract idea as described with respect to the first prong of Step 2A, i.e. mental process (i.e. human evaluating and scheduling human agents and training human agents), organizing human activities (i.e. human evaluating and scheduling human agents and training human agents based on human agent performance), mathematical concepts (i.e. human using mathematical concepts of scoring to evaluate and schedule human agents and train human agents). This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem or necessarily roots in computing technologies. The alleged solutions are solutions directed to solving abstract ideas, which are still abstract ideas. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, i.e. computer, WFM, ACD. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and call center, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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 1-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (similarly 12) recites, “A …-method for identifying high impacted schedules, in a contact center, said …-method comprising:
retrieving schedules of agents during a preconfigured period from a Workforce Management (WFM) …, wherein the retrieved schedules are active schedules for each schedule:
(i) operating a schedule quotient module to derive schedule-quotient score;
(ii) operating an agent quotient module to derive agent-quotient score;
(iii) operating a Schedule Impact Score (SIS) module to derive a schedule-impact score based on the derived schedule-quotient score and the derived agent- quotient score, wherein the schedule-impact score is derived in real-time,
(iv) operating a recommendation module for auto-corrective measures in one or more systems based on the derived schedule-impact score; and
(v) configuring a Quality Management (QM) … to:
(i) check a schedule-impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions during the schedule-impact score related schedule; and
(ii) upon evaluation, assign agents in interactions lacking quality metrics in the related schedule to training,
wherein the schedule quotient module derives the schedule-quotient score based on:
(i) schedule staffing variance: and
(ii)Schedule average Service Level Agreement (SLA) variance in a preconfigured period,
wherein the agent quotient module derives the agent-quotient score based on:
(i)average schedule adherence and
(ii)average agent performance, and
wherein the auto-corrective measures include:
(i) performing realignment of routing of an …; and
(ii) optimizing schedules in the WFM … in an order that is based on each schedule schedule-impact score.”
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …retrieving schedules of agents during a preconfigured period from a Workforce Management (WFM) …, wherein the retrieved schedules are active schedules for each schedule: (i) operating a schedule quotient module to derive schedule-quotient score; (ii) operating an agent quotient module to derive agent-quotient score; (iii) operating a Schedule Impact Score (SIS) module to derive a schedule-impact score based on the derived schedule-quotient score and the derived agent- quotient score, wherein the schedule-impact score is derived in real-time, (iv) operating a recommendation module for auto-corrective measures in one or more systems based on the derived schedule-impact score; and (v) configuring a Quality Management (QM) … to: (i) check a schedule-impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions during the schedule-impact score related schedule; and (ii) upon evaluation, assign agents in interactions lacking quality metrics in the related schedule to training, wherein the schedule quotient module derives the schedule-quotient score based on: (i) schedule staffing variance: and (ii)Schedule average Service Level Agreement (SLA) variance in a preconfigured period, wherein the agent quotient module derives the agent-quotient score based on: (i)average schedule adherence and (ii)average agent performance, and wherein the auto-corrective measures include: (i) performing realignment of routing of an …; and (ii) optimizing schedules in the WFM … in an order that is based on each schedule schedule-impact score.…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the above identified limitations; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …retrieving schedules of agents during a preconfigured period from a Workforce Management (WFM) …, wherein the retrieved schedules are active schedules for each schedule: (i) operating a schedule quotient module to derive schedule-quotient score; (ii) operating an agent quotient module to derive agent-quotient score; (iii) operating a Schedule Impact Score (SIS) module to derive a schedule-impact score based on the derived schedule-quotient score and the derived agent- quotient score, wherein the schedule-impact score is derived in real-time, (iv) operating a recommendation module for auto-corrective measures in one or more systems based on the derived schedule-impact score; and (v) configuring a Quality Management (QM) … to: (i) check a schedule-impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions during the schedule-impact score related schedule; and (ii) upon evaluation, assign agents in interactions lacking quality metrics in the related schedule to training, wherein the schedule quotient module derives the schedule-quotient score based on: (i) schedule staffing variance: and (ii)Schedule average Service Level Agreement (SLA) variance in a preconfigured period, wherein the agent quotient module derives the agent-quotient score based on: (i)average schedule adherence and (ii)average agent performance, and wherein the auto-corrective measures include: (i) performing realignment of routing of an …; and (ii) optimizing schedules in the WFM … in an order that is based on each schedule schedule-impact score…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are human evaluating and scheduling human agents and training human agents based on human agent performance, therefore it is, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, …retrieving schedules of agents during a preconfigured period from a Workforce Management (WFM) …, wherein the retrieved schedules are active schedules for each schedule: (i) operating a schedule quotient module to derive schedule-quotient score; (ii) operating an agent quotient module to derive agent-quotient score; (iii) operating a Schedule Impact Score (SIS) module to derive a schedule-impact score based on the derived schedule-quotient score and the derived agent- quotient score, wherein the schedule-impact score is derived in real-time, (iv) operating a recommendation module for auto-corrective measures in one or more systems based on the derived schedule-impact score; and (v) configuring a Quality Management (QM) … to: (i) check a schedule-impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions during the schedule-impact score related schedule; and (ii) upon evaluation, assign agents in interactions lacking quality metrics in the related schedule to training, wherein the schedule quotient module derives the schedule-quotient score based on: (i) schedule staffing variance: and (ii)Schedule average Service Level Agreement (SLA) variance in a preconfigured period, wherein the agent quotient module derives the agent-quotient score based on: (i)average schedule adherence and (ii)average agent performance, and wherein the auto-corrective measures include: (i) performing realignment of routing of an …; and (ii) optimizing schedules in the WFM … in an order that is based on each schedule schedule-impact score…, are mathematical concepts.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 12: computerized, Workforce Management (WFM) system, Computerized-system, computerized-system comprising: one or more processors; database of agent metrics; database of schedule metrics; a memory to store the database of agents metrics and the database of schedule metrics, said one or more processors are configured to, system, Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) system
Claim 4: schedule metrics database
Claim 5: agent metrics database
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “…retrieving ….”, “…operating a recommendation module for auto-corrective measures…”, “displaying…”, “generating…”, “check a schedule- impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “…retrieving….” “check a schedule- impact score above a preconfigured threshold for an increased sampling rate of interactions…”, data output –“…operating a recommendation module for auto-corrective measures….”, “displaying…”, “generating…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0037] In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the disclosure. However, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well- known methods, procedures, components, modules, units and/or circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the disclosure.
[0038] Although embodiments of the disclosure are not limited in this regard, discussions utilizing terms such as, for example, "processing,""computing,""calculating,""determining,""establishing", "analyzing", "checking", or the like, may refer to operation(s) and/or process(es) of a computer, a computing platform, a 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.
[0039] Although embodiments of the disclosure are not limited in this regard, the terms "plurality" and "a plurality" as used herein may include, for example, "multiple" or "two or more". The terms "plurality" or "a plurality" may be used throughout the specification to describe two or more components, devices, elements, units, parameters, or the like. Unless explicitly stated, the method embodiments described herein are not constrained to a particular order or sequence. Additionally, some of the described method embodiments or elements thereof can occur or be performed simultaneously, at the same point in time, or concurrently. Unless otherwise indicated, use of the conjunction "or" as used herein is to be understood as inclusive (any or all of the stated options).
[0042] Fig. lA schematically illustrates a high-level diagram of a computerized-system100A for identifying high impacted schedules, in a contact center, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention.
[0077] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, in a system, such as computerized- system100A for identifying high impacted schedules, in a contact center, by operation of identifying high impacted schedules, in a contact center, such as operation200 in Fig. 2, one or more processors (not shown) may be configured to retrieve schedules during a preconfigured period from a module, such as schedule forecasting module110a in a Workforce Management (WFM) system (not shown) and for each schedule operating a module, such as schedule quotient module125a to derive schedule- quotient score.
[0096] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, the performing of realignment of routing of an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) system140d occurs when agents are added or removed from schedules due to a related schedule impact score. As a result, the ACD skill-based routing changes as per added or removed agents list. In skill based routing the calls are routed based on availability and ascending order of skill proficiency where skill proficiency ranges, e.g., from 1 to 20. 1 being the highest proficient agent in that skill and 20 being the lowest proficient agent for that skill
[00143] Different embodiments are disclosed herein. Features of certain embodiments may be combined with features of other embodiments; thus, certain embodiments may be combinations of features of multiple embodiments. The foregoing description of the embodiments of the disclosure has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise form disclosed. It should be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that many modifications, variations, substitutions, changes, and equivalents are possible in light of the above teaching. It is, therefore, to be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications and changes as fall within the true spirit of the disclosure.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623