DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 09/05/2025, Applicant, on 12/04/2025, filed the original claims without amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged.
4. The 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process) or system (machine), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method of determining operational advantages associated with prospective use by a contact center of a predictive routing model, wherein the operational advantages include quantifying an expected lift in a target metric, the method comprising the steps of: receiving an operational dataset associated with a timeperiod of operation for the contact center, the operational dataset comprising interaction data associated with interactions with customers handled by agents of the contact center during the timeperiod; receiving agent characteristic data for each of the agents of the contact center; providing the predictive routing model that is configured to predict a score for the target metric for a given agent for a given interaction based on agent characteristic data associated with the given agent and interaction data associated with the given interaction; and using the received predictive routing model, operational dataset, and agent characteristic data, computing, via a first algorithm, the expected lift in the target metric assuming use of the predictive routing model during the timeperiod; wherein the first algorithm computes the lift in the target metric based on individual agent occupancy levels pursuant to the steps of: dividing the timeperiod of the operational dataset into sequentially occurring timeslots; for each timeslot of the timeperiod, performing the following steps, which, when described in relation to an exemplary first timeslot of the timeslots, include: determining, based on the operational dataset, an availability for each of the agents during the first timeslot, the availability comprising an actual portion of the first timeslot that the agent is available; using the new predictive routing model to determine a score for the target metric for each of the agents for each of the interactions during the timeslot; for each of the interactions in the first timeslot, calculating an agent routing probability, wherein for a given agent, wherein the calculation of the agent routing probability takes into account a probability that the interaction would be routed to the given agent based on the availability of the given agent and the score for the target metric of the given agent relative to the scores of the other agents; for each agent, calculating an agent specific component of an interaction expected value, wherein for a given agent the calculation of the agent specific component of interaction expected value comprises multiplying the agent routing probability of the given agent by the score for the given agent; calculating the interaction expected value for each of the interactions of the first timeslot, wherein, for a given interaction, the interaction expected value comprises summing the agent specific component for each of the agents as calculated for the given interaction; calculating an average timeslot predicted score for the target metric for the first timeslot as an average of the interaction expected values as calculated for the interactions of the first timeslot; calculating, based on the average timeslot predicted scores calculated for each of the timeslots, a timeperiod predicted score for the target metric; and comparing the timeperiod predicted score for the target metric against a baseline score for the target metric for the timeperiod to compute the expected lift, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because using a predictive routing model in a contact center to improve operations is a business practice for mitigating risk and involving commercial interactions. Furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because predicting a score for a target metric based on agent characteristic data and interaction data using a model is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claim 13 recites a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, independent Claim 1 includes no additional elements and is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claim 13, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claim, including additional elements such as at least one processor; and at least one memory, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Independent Claim 13 is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claim 1, the Claim does not include any additional elements and therefore does not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 6A, 6B of the Drawings and paragraphs 17, 20, 34, 35 and 104-120 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claim 13, the Claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above at Step 2A Prong Two for independent Claim 13, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 6A, 6B of the Drawings and paragraphs 17, 20, 34, 35 and 104-120 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-12, 14-20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent Claim from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-12 do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as a computer screen, a machine learning model, a machine-learning algorithm, wherein the machine-learning algorithm comprises a neural network, individually and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, these Claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and these Claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 14-20 do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for independent Claim 13 from which they depend and a computer screen, a machine learning model, individually and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, these Claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and these Claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above for Claims 2-12 at Step 2A Prong Two, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 6A, 6B of the Drawings and paragraphs 17, 20, 34, 35 and 104-120 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 14-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above for Claims 14-20 at Step 2A Prong Two, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 6A, 6B of the Drawings and paragraphs 17, 20, 34, 35 and 104-120 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
9. Applicant argues (at pp. 1-2) that, at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims recite “a detailed, machine-executed algorithm designed to compute expected lift in a target metric” and are not directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or Mental Processes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis, the abstract idea recited in the claims is articulated at paragraph 7 above in this office action (see MPEP 2106.07(a)), and clearly falls within the abstract idea categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. As noted at MPEP 2106.07 (III), the courts consider the determination of whether a claim is eligible (which involves identifying whether an exception such as an abstract idea is being claimed) to be a question of law, and when performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Further, as noted at MPEP 2111, claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2111.01).
10. Applicant also argues (at pp. 2-3) that, at Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, “the independent claims recite specific improvements to the technical field of a contact center routing system by evaluating predictive routing model behavior under realistic operational constraints”, and the claim is therefore a practical application of the abstract idea (and thus eligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “evaluating predictive routing model behavior under realistic operational constraints” is an abstract idea. As explained above at paragraph 7 in this Office Action, the additional (computer) elements in the claims are merely used as tools to implement the abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Examiner also notes that novelty does not necessarily equate with patent-eligibility, as pointed out by the Court in Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all") and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“According to Ultramercial, abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under § 101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity. ... We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). .
11. Applicant also argues (at p. 3) that the language of the claims "improves the functioning of a technological system, not an effort to monopolize an abstract idea", and should thus be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at Step 2B of the analysis.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the court was concerned not only with the monopolistic preemption of broad areas, but also with the preemption of judicial exceptions in more narrowly constrained abstract ideas. First, a claim cannot avoid the preemption concern by limiting itself to a particular technological environment. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357-58 (limiting an abstract idea to computer environment does not mitigate preemption concerns). The Supreme Court has warned that a “draftsman’s art” should not trump the prohibitions against patenting abstract ideas. See Alice Corp., 132 S.Ct. at 2359 (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294 (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))). Second, the claim is still abstract and does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao 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 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623