DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 27 January 2026.
Claims 1 – 24 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/122131. Claims 1 – 24 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 27 January 2026, Applicant amended no claims. Claim 25 was previously canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims are not directed to abstract ideas without significantly more as claims require technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed functions do not require technology to be performed, even though the claims recite the use of technology. There is no operational control over technical systems as Applicant alleges. ACD and WFM are merely labels for systems that do not even have to be technologically implemented. The technology recited is merely an example of “apply it” utilizing generic, well-known technology to automate otherwise completely abstract function. The problem that Applicant describes in a lack of intelligent routing based on agent-specific indicators that they feel is resolved by this invention is an improvement to the business method, not to a technology. As there is no specific technology nor a requirement for technology, it cannot be a practical application of any technology. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of all claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite receiving one or more metrics from a user to construct a Key Performance Indicator (KPI); retrieving data related to one or more agents during a predefined period for the one or more metrics from one or more performance management databases; calculating a change in KPI; when the calculated change in KPI is negative: calculating an influence of each metric on the calculated change in KPI; calculating an influence of each agent on the calculated change in KPI; checking each agent having a negative change of a goal accomplished percentage, to downgrade a contribution factor of an agent having a top negative influence on the calculated change in KPI; pointing on an influencer on a measured performance change by forwarding the downgraded contribution factor of the agent having the top negative influence on the calculated change in KPI to a downstream application; and configuring a system to route an interaction to an agent having highest contribution factor from two or more qualified agents to attend the interaction and configuring another system to schedule agents having varies contribution factor values to yield a balanced shift. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method and the system are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of calculating influence of performance metrics between agents, as it amounts to managing interactions between people and businesses, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping, as claims describe numerous calculating steps. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving one or more metrics from a user to construct a Key Performance Indicator (KPI); retrieving data related to one or more agents during a predefined period for the one or more metrics from one or more performance management databases; calculating a change in KPI; when the calculated change in KPI is negative: calculating an influence of each metric on the calculated change in KPI; calculating an influence of each agent on the calculated change in KPI; checking each agent having a negative change of a goal accomplished percentage, to downgrade a contribution factor of an agent having a top negative influence on the calculated change in KPI; pointing on an influencer on a measured performance change by forwarding the downgraded contribution factor of the agent having the top negative influence on the calculated change in KPI to a downstream application; and configuring a system to route an interaction to an agent having highest contribution factor from two or more qualified agents to attend the interaction and configuring another system to schedule agents having varies contribution factor values to yield a balanced shift.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a computerized method and system, databases, memory, display unit, and processor, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
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 limitations are directed to: a computerized method and system, databases, memory, display unit, and processor. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
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 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional 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 the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further calculating of changes and metrics, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. 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 conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm 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 Epstein can be reached at 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625