DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 17 and 19-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on page 7, the applicant argues that the limitations as a whole integrate the exception into a practical application. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claims as a whole are directed towards determining a stress level of the caller, determining if the stress level exceeds a threshold and determining an output action. These limitations are observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion which are concepts performed in human mind. Therefore an abstract idea is involved.
Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Here, the additional limitations, “air freshener”, “producing a blood pressure”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity. For example, producing a blood pressure by observing is mere pre-solution activity to collect data, while output action to an electronic air freshener is a mere post-solution activity to output the result of an abstract idea. It is further noted that the mentioned limitations are further well-understood, routine and conventional. Examples of these are provided in the mentioned references below. For at least the reasons cited above, the 101 rejections are maintained and are final.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20160157776 to Mestha et al. (previously presented) in view of JP2018107769A to Muraoka et al (previously presented) and US Pat Pub No. 20210217533 to Heimerl.
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 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-4, 6-7, 21-22 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 8-10, 13-16, 20, 23-24 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “determine a first stress level”, “determine if the first stress level exceeds a first predetermined threshold”, “determine an output action”, etc. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional limitations of “observing”, “notifying”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, 20-24 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “heart rate”, “audio data, visual data, or biometric data”, “monitor”, “headset”, mobile phone”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). It is further noted that removing the call taker from a queue, directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue, removing the caller from the phone queue, etc., are stated in a way that when read under its broadest reasonable interpretation would cover a verbal output by the person performing the abstract idea to let the caller know to rotate out of a phone queue (i.e., similar to letting the caller know that they are due a lunch break or etc. by a manager).
It is further noted a machine learning is considered a program while the action of training the machine learning model falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations or mental observations or evaluation to iteratively adjust the model.
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, 20-24 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-17, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20160157776 to Mestha et al. (hereinafter “Mestha” – previously presented) in view of JP2018107769A to Muraoka et al (hereinafter “Muraoaka”) and US Pat Pub No. 20210217533 to Heimerl.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15. Mestha discloses a method/apparatus/a non-transitory, computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a processing unit, perform operations [], comprising: observing a call taker to produce first data (para 0006-0007 “method [] generating at least one time-series signal [] includes at least one PPG signal”); determining a first stress level of the call taker, at least in part based on the first data (para 0007 “determining, by a stress assessment device, a stress level of the agent based on a processing”); determining if the first stress level exceeds a first predetermined threshold (para 0007 “the stress level of the agent based on the ratio exceeding a predefined stress threshold [] stress profile”, para 0042 “agent stress exceeding a predefined threshold”, para 0085-0086); determining an output action, if the first stress level exceeds the first predetermined threshold; and notifying of the action (para 0042 “Based on the stress level of the agent, the stress assessment device 116 may provide a real-time feedback to the agent device 108 or a supervisor device 122 associated with the supervisor 104”, para 0071 “predefined suggestive remedial messages may be stored in the feedback device”) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first data includes a blood pressure of the call taker.
Muraoka, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to monitor the caller’s blood pressure while monitoring the caller’s biometric information to determine the caller’s stress level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Mestha with the known teachings of Muraoaka because doing so would provide the predictable result of collecting additional biometric information to determine the stress level.
Mestha as modified by Muraoaka renders obvious the limitations above but fails to disclose notifying an electronic air freshener of the output action.
Heimerl from a similar field of endeavor teaches determining the state of the user from one or more biometric sensors and administering immediate, dual intervention of a sensory form to deescalate the crisis operating state of a person or group of persons (abstract, 0007, 0064, 0086 “stress-mitigating themed sub-collections or its results presented to the user with which to engage with data captured by the system through a device such as a smart phone, tablet, smart watch, headset, desktop or other user device [] air freshener that is configured to wirelessly receive commands to emit a selected one or more of a plurality of possible scents”, fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Mestha as modified by Muraoaka with the teachings of Heimerl because doing so would provide the predictable result of deescalate the crisis operating state (stress) of a person or group of persons using the dual intervention.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16. Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of Claim 1, apparatus of Claim 8, medium of Claim 15,
Mestha discloses further comprising: in response to the notifying observing the call taker to produce second data; determining a second stress level of the call taker, at least in part based on the second data; determining if the second stress level is less than a second predetermined threshold; and updating the first data and the first stress level, at least in part based on the second data and the second stress level, if the second stress level is not less than the second predetermined threshold (para 0085, continuously monitoring the agent, “detecting agent stress due to an increase in the LF/HF ratio beyond “1” as indicated in the agent stress profile, the feedback device 616 provides the feedback to the agent 102 and the supervisor 104 in real-time during a live customer interaction”, “stress assessment device can be worn for longer period to monitor agent's physiological state further and reinstate his/her activities after the stress level reaches the desired state”, etc., 0042, 0043, 0045 “stress profile based on the determined stress level [] multiple predefined stress thresholds to create the stress profile for each agent 102 in real-time”).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17. Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of Claim 2, apparatus of Claim 9, medium of Claim 16, further comprising: performing machine learning, at least in part based on the first stress level, the action, and the second stress level; and outputting an action, at least in part based on the machine learning (Heimerl, para 0069-0070, 0085, 0094, etc.).
Regarding claim 4. Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of Claim 1, further comprising: setting up the system with a heart rate of the call taker (para 0028 “heart rate”, 0043 “HRV”).
Regarding claims 6, 13. Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of Claim 2, apparatus of Claim 9, Mestha discloses wherein the output action is for the call taker (0047, 0085-0086; “predefined suggestive remedial messages assist the agent 102”; Heimerl, para 0086).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20. Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of Claim 2, apparatus of Claim 9, medium of Claim 16,
Mestha discloses, wherein the first data and the second data include audio data, visual data, or biometric data (para 0007, PPG, 0034 “audio”, “video message”; Heimerl, abstract, para 0007, etc.).
Regarding claim 21. (New) Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: collecting an incident type of a plurality of calls taken by the call taker; and directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue, at least in part based on the incident type (Heimerl, para 0008, 0017, various stress causes, and de-escalation techniques, para 0110 “de-escalation intervention/tool [] the exercises are designed to be implemented during a quick exit from any situation where the user can walk out for a 2-3 minute break—which is nearly all situations in which humans find themselves … The avatar 82 can pop up into view based on voice activation or other user selection. In other implementations, the user can choose other immediate de-escalation exercises to help lower the user to their normal state.”). It is noted that the claim as recited does not provide any details regarding what the “incident types” are. Therefore, any stress causing situation is considered to be the incident type. Furthermore, even though Heimerl does not explicitly disclose “directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue”, it does teach letting the user know to take a break or perform a de-escalation exercise. This would include take a break from work, i.e., getting out of the phone queue as in Mestha reference. As such, modifying Mestha with the teachings of Heimerl would render obvious taking a break and getting out of the phone queue.
Regarding claim 22. (New) Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: removing the call taker from a queue, if the first stress level exceeds the first predetermined threshold (Heimerl, para 0008, 0017, various stress causes, and de-escalation techniques, para 0110 “de-escalation intervention/tool [] the exercises are designed to be implemented during a quick exit from any situation where the user can walk out for a 2-3 minute break—which is nearly all situations in which humans find themselves … The avatar 82 can pop up into view based on voice activation or other user selection. In other implementations, the user can choose other immediate de-escalation exercises to help lower the user to their normal state.”). It is noted that the claim as recited does not provide any details regarding what the “incident types” are. Therefore, any stress causing situation is considered to be the incident type. Furthermore, even though Heimerl does not explicitly disclose “directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue”, it does teach letting the user know to take a break or perform a de-escalation exercise. This would include take a break from work, i.e., getting out of the phone queue as in Mestha reference. As such, modifying Mestha with the teachings of Heimerl would render obvious taking a break and getting out of the phone queue.
Regarding claim 23. (New) Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the software to collect an incident type of a plurality of calls taken by the call taker and to direct the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue, at least in part based on the incident type (Heimerl, para 0008, 0017, various stress causes, and de-escalation techniques, para 0110 “de-escalation intervention/tool [] the exercises are designed to be implemented during a quick exit from any situation where the user can walk out for a 2-3 minute break—which is nearly all situations in which humans find themselves … The avatar 82 can pop up into view based on voice activation or other user selection. In other implementations, the user can choose other immediate de-escalation exercises to help lower the user to their normal state.”). It is noted that the claim as recited does not provide any details regarding what the “incident types” are. Therefore, any stress causing situation is considered to be the incident type. Furthermore, even though Heimerl does not explicitly disclose “directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue”, it does teach letting the user know to take a break or perform a de-escalation exercise. This would include take a break from work, i.e., getting out of the phone queue as in Mestha reference. As such, modifying Mestha with the teachings of Heimerl would render obvious taking a break and getting out of the phone queue.
Regarding claim 24. (New) Mestha as modified by Muraoaka and Heimerl renders obvious the medium of claim 15, the operations further comprising: collecting an incident type of a plurality of calls taken by the call taker; and directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue, at least in part based on the incident type (Heimerl, para 0008, 0017, various stress causes, and de-escalation techniques, para 0110 “de-escalation intervention/tool [] the exercises are designed to be implemented during a quick exit from any situation where the user can walk out for a 2-3 minute break—which is nearly all situations in which humans find themselves … The avatar 82 can pop up into view based on voice activation or other user selection. In other implementations, the user can choose other immediate de-escalation exercises to help lower the user to their normal state.”). It is noted that the claim as recited does not provide any details regarding what the “incident types” are. Therefore, any stress causing situation is considered to be the incident type. Furthermore, even though Heimerl does not explicitly disclose “directing the call taker to rotate out of a phone queue”, it does teach letting the user know to take a break or perform a de-escalation exercise. This would include take a break from work, i.e., getting out of the phone queue as in Mestha reference. As such, modifying Mestha with the teachings of Heimerl would render obvious taking a break and getting out of the phone queue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding claims 21-24, also see WO2023023380A1 to Chaplin et al. at [0028], [0035] “queue each the agents in the plurality of agents based on respective stress levels thereof. In examples, the presentation can include prompting providing the agent with at least one of a switch to a less stressful task and a break. Less stressful tasks than handling customer calls can include training, email responses, etc. when available.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796