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 .
The following office action is in response to the claims/remarks filed Jan 07, 2026. Claims 1-7,10-16, 19, 20, and 23-26 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are amended to recite, in part, “an availability analysis to determine the extraneous cognitive load by determining an extent of an unavailability of information needed to resolve the customer-encountered issue”…, however, paragraph 0059 describes it is the extrinsic cognitive load that includes identifying whether information necessary to resolve the issues is available. There is no description of the claimed unavailability determination being related to the extraneous cognitive load. Please make appropriate corrections to claims 1, 10 and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claimed estimation of the cognitive load that is performed “simultaneously [] using parallel processing by the hardware processor and in real-time” is too complicated to be performed within the human mind using pen and paper and is not a process the human mind is equipped to perform. Parallel processing by the hardware processor amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Examiner notes, "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). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Next Applicant asserts that the claimed recite a practical application and specifically states the claimed invention is directed to a technical solution to an existing technical problem. Examiner counters that improving agent assignment based on cognitive load thereby resolving more issues per unit time is not a technical improvement. An improved method of assigning agents to issues based on cognitive load is not a technical problem.
In response to Applicants comments that additional elements of the claims were arbitrarily dismissed. It is noted that the additional elements are evaluated in Prong 2. Taken alone or in combination, the Response Management System along with the identified abstract idea amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,10-16, 19, 20, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-7,10-16, 19, 20, and 23-26 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the steps of:
obtaining,
performing,
estimating a cognitive load required to resolve a customer-encountered issue of the customer- encountered issues, wherein the estimate of the cognitive load is based on an inherent cognitive load, an extraneous cognitive load, and a germane cognitive load, and the estimate of the cognitive load is estimated by: [evaluation]
an availability analysis to determine the extraneous cognitive load by determining an extent of an unavailability of information needed to resolve the customer-encountered issue; [evaluation]
an issue analysis to determine the intrinsic cognitive load by determining whether the customer-encountered issue is associated with a known issue, [evaluation] and an information analysis to determine the germane cognitive load by determining available information related to the customer- encountered issue and available information usable to resolve the customer-encountered issue; [evaluation]
selecting a service agent level based on the estimate of the cognitive load; [evaluation] and
selecting a service agent of the service agents, the selected service agent having the selected service agent level; [evaluation]and
resolving the customer-encountered issue by assigning the selected service agent to work the customer-encountered issue [evaluation, pen/paper] is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the rules or instructions one would follow to resolve a customer issue (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) and also involves Mental Processes in the form of observations and evaluations. Each of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the same abstract idea. The nominal recitation of a response management system (RMS) embodied by a data processing system and executed by a hardware processor of the RMS [claim 1], hardware processor-executed instructions stored in a non-transitory machine-readable medium [claim 10] and data processing system comprising a hardware processor and memory coupled to the hardware processor to store executable instructions [claim 19] do not indicate the claimed invention is not an abstract idea. The use of parallel processing in each of the independent claims amounts to using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. There is no improvement to any technology or computer as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method claim performed by a response management system (RMS), the method being executed by a hardware processor of the RMS which amounts to using a computer to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claim 10 amounts to instructions to execute the abstract idea by a hardware processor of a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 19 is a data processing system comprising a hardware processor and memory coupled to the hardware processor to store instructions to execute the abstract idea. The use of parallel processing in each of the independent claims amounts to using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. There is no improvement to any technology or computer therefore the above recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are directed to calculating metrics and a numerical score based on the metrics. The limitations recite mental processes (observations/evaluations) and certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer elements in 11 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3, 12 and 23 are directed to further calculations. The claims recite mental processes (observations/evaluations) and certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4, 13 and 24 are directed to further calculations. The claims recite mental processes (observations/evaluations) and certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5, 14 and 25 are directed to further calculations and evaluations. The claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer elements in the claims amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 6, 15 and 26 are directed to further calculations and evaluations. The claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer elements in the claims amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 16 are directed to further calculations and evaluations. The claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The computer elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and as a whole, the hardware system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Applicant’s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant’s remarks filed on 05/26/2025 point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625