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 02/10/2026, Applicant, on 05/11/2026, amended Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20. Claims 4 and 13 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and 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 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine) or medium (manufacture), 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 a pursuit effectiveness score for a pursuit associated with an agent, comprising: receiving.. performance data associated with the agent .., wherein the performance data comprises at least one of call metrics, or transcript data corresponding to an interaction handled by the agent; identifying .. one or more agent skills from a plurality of agent skills assigned to the agent and key performance targets corresponding to the one or more agent skills; determining .. key performance indicator (KPI) values for the key performance targets using the performance data; assigning .. the pursuit targeted to the key performance targets, wherein the pursuit comprises one or more objectives associated with the key performance targets; dynamically monitoring .. updated performance data associated with the agent during execution of the pursuit; determining .. updated KPI values for the one or more key performance targets after completion of at least an amount of the pursuit using the updated performance data; determining .. a change score, a completion score, and a speed score, wherein the change score represents a change between the KPI values and the updated KPI values, wherein the completion score represents a degree of completion of the pursuit, wherein the speed score represents a duration associated with the execution of the pursuit; calculating .. a pursuit effectiveness score for the pursuit by applying weights to the change score, the completion score, and the speed score; determining .. a performance zone for the pursuit effectiveness score relative to one or more scoring thresholds; identifying .. an additional agent skill for the agent based on the performance zone; .. assigning .. training to the agent based on the pursuit effectiveness score and the performance zone; assigning .. an additional pursuit targeted to one or more additional key performance targets associated with the additional agent skill; and .. modifying .. at least one of the objectives of subsequent pursuit and the one or more weights used in calculating a subsequent pursuit effectiveness score based on the performance zone, which under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in light of the Specification is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because receiving call metrics or transcript data corresponding to an interaction handled by an agent, assigning a pursuit targeted to performance targets, and monitoring updated performance data associated with the agent during execution of the pursuit is a business process for mitigating economic risk, and involves business relations and managing interactions between people. Furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because determining a performance level of an agent and identifying an additional agent skill for the agent based on the performance is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Claims 10 and 19 recite the same abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1, 10 and 19, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as processor-implemented, one or more processors, one or more data stores of a communication system, automatically, dynamically, one or more processors and 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 one or more processors, A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable, 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. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis for independent Claims 1, 10 and 19, the independent Claims 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, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 6 of the Drawings and paragraphs 30-33, 74-78 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 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14-18 and 20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, and 15-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 5, 14 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a machine learning system comprising a neural network, 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. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, and 15-18 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 5, 14 and 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 the independent Claims and a machine learning system comprising a neural network, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 6 of the Drawings and paragraphs 30-33, 74-78 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 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 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 05/11/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not found persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
9. Applicant argues (at pp. 20-28) that the amended claim language does not recite a mental process (abstract idea) at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 because “the steps of the Applicant's claimed invention [that] are not (a) performed in the human mind and (b) performed by humans without a computer”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 7 above in this office action, the independent Claims clearly recite an abstract idea falling in the grouping of Mental Processes (for example, “determining .. a performance zone for the pursuit effectiveness score relative to one or more scoring thresholds”) under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claim language in light of the specification at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis (see MPEP 2106).
10. Applicant argues (at pp. 29-31) that the amended claim language integrates the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis because “the claimed invention improves the operation of the processor-implemented dynamic data analytics”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 7 above in this Office Action, the Claims recite an abstract idea (falling under the abstract idea groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and also of Mental Processes) at Step 2A Prong One; at Step 2A Prong Two, the use of a computer system simply as a tool to implement the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f); the Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception, and are thus ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner notes that “processor-implemented” clearly conveys that the computer systems are used as a tool to implement the data analysis presented in the claim language.
As noted at MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”.
Examiner also notes that, with regard to 35 U.S.C. 101, novelty does not necessarily equate with patent-eligibility, as pointed out by the Court in 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.").
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
12. 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 on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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 .
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights