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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026 has been entered.
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 13 January 2026.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the previous office action, Claims 1-8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicants have not amended Claims 1-8 to provide statutory support and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 13 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1-8, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Still commensurate with the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024, the claims are continued analyzed based on these new guidelines and as further detailed below in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 101. Specifically and reproduced from the previous Final Office action, Applicant submits: “…the additional elements do not append the alleged abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field, but improves the operation of the WFM application by allocating agents to office location based on office capacity and a calculated Agent Work From Office (AWFO) score in ascending order and Agent Health (AH) score greater than ‘0’ until office capacity is full or agent requirements for the skill are fulfilled; when the agents count for the skill is not fulfilled, allocating agents to work from home based on an associated Agent Home Productivity (AHP) score in descending order” (see Remarks/Arguments pages 1-5). However the Examiner respectfully disagrees and provides further clarification as to specifically why the claims are directed to an abstract idea as: Under Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 1-8 do 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea manually/mentally and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. For Remark/Argument (1), the Examiner did not previously state the claims alleged abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field and appears to be a reference to Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) Federal court decision for this argument with no specific and detailed explanation as to how or why this recitation is supported and explained. To be specific, Patent Examiners are not required to address this argument based on this specific court decision unless Examiners have cited in rejections this specific court decision as part of previous prosecution analysis under this current rejection which the Examiner had not previously cited nor improves the operation of the WFM application. In summary as indicated below through Steps 1-2B, the Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of a mechanism used for accomplishing the result. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea manually/mentally and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant submits that: (2) McLean et al. (McLean) (US 8,078,486) in view of Peters et al. (Peters) (US 2020/0302934) does not teach or suggest in un-amended represented Claim 1: Neither Mclean nor Peters teaches or suggests generating these specific scores, nor performing ascending AWFO allocation combined with descending AHP allocation as part of a capacity-aware staffing decision” and specific limitations not specifically recited as such in the claims [see Remarks pages 6-9]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the sake of redundancy, the Examiner maintains the below rejected and non-amended claim limitations as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (McLean) (US 8,078,486) in view of Peters et al. (Peters) (US 2020/0302934) with further clarification and additional citations from the current cite prior art. Additionally, the Examiner still notes that the claimed contents of Claims 1-8 amount to non-functional descriptive/titled/labeled material that do not functionally alter the claimed method. The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of what data is contained in the various “scores; AWFO; WFM; AHP; ASP; AH; value; ascending/descending order; greater than ‘0’; score is ‘1’”. These terms are subjective, meaning another entity or organization, for example, could want “agents” to have values and value ranges be “lowest AWFO score” or “highest”, etc. Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
In addition, the claimed contents of Claims 1-8 amount to non-functional descriptive/titled/labeled material that do not functionally alter the claimed method. The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of what data is contained in the various “scores; AWFO; WFM; AHP; ASP; AH; value; ascending/descending order; greater than ‘0’; score is ‘1’”. These terms are subjective, meaning another entity or organization, for example, could want “agents” to have values and value ranges be “lowest AWFO score” or “highest”, etc. Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are still not focused to a statutory category of invention set. Although the preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “computerized-method”, there are no additional computer architecture components recited within the body of at least Claim 1 to provide a proper statutory category of invention for the step limitations, meaning a person/user is manually/mentally prioritizing agents for working from office. Despite this continued failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-8 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for, generally, “prioritizing agents for working from office” and the steps are likely considered "directed to" an abstract idea because they constitute a method of organizing human activity and numerical calculations without inherently improving the computer's functionality itself (rather using the computer as a tool to automate the scheduling) by:
“when creating a schedule for a period, via the WFM application:
(i) getting one or more skills for each day in the schedule, wherein each skill is having an associated priority;
(ii) allocating agents for each skill in descending order of priority associated to the skill by: for each skill that requires agents to work from office:
a. getting forecast agents count for the skill;
b. allocating agents to office location based on office capacity and a calculated Agent Work From Office (AWFO) score in ascending order and Agent Health (AH) score greater than ‘0’ until office capacity is full or agent requirements for the skill are fulfilled;
when the agents count for the skill is not fulfilled, allocating agents to work from home based on an associated Agent Home Productivity (AHP) score in descending order;
when the skill doesn't require agents to work from office, allocating agents to work from home based on the associated AHP score in descending order;
wherein the AWFO score and the AHP score are calculated by: operating an Agent Work From Office (AWFO) Prioritization Analytics module, said AWFO Prioritization Analytics module comprising: for each agent in the data store of agents' metrics: calculating an Agent Health (AH) score; when the AH score is ‘1’ then: calculating:
AHP score;
(ii) Agent Skills Prioritization (ASP) score;
and (iii) agent's preferences to work from office indicator;
and determining an AWFO score based on the AHP score, the ASP score and the agent's preferences to work from office indicator”
These claims fall under the categories:
(a) Mathematical concepts- mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations- i.e., (AH score; ASP score; AWFO score), specifically “calculating AWFO/AHP/ASP scores”.
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity –the process of organizing human activity—managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see above highlighted bold). Scheduling employees based on preferences (office/home), productivity, and skill priority. While the process is implemented by a WFM application, the core actions (ranking, prioritizing, and assigning personnel) are fundamental business practices that can be performed mentally or with basic tools
(c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps described represent mental processes—data manipulation and decision-making—that could theoretically be performed by a human, even if a computer is used to speed up the process (see above highlighted bold).
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1-8: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 does not recite additional elements directed to support the claim step limitations. Therefore, the claims are not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using a mental/manual process, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), Claims 1-8 do 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea manually/mentally and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of a mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Applicant submits that: (2) McLean et al. (McLean) (US 8,078,486) in view of Peters et al. (Peters) (US 2020/0302934) does not teach or suggest in un-amended and representative Claim 1: Mclean doesn’t have the WFM application to allocate agents for each skill in descending order of priority associated to the skill and allocating agents to office location based on office capacity and a calculated Agent Work From Office (AWFO) score in ascending order and Agent Health (AH) score greater than ‘0’ until office capacity is full or agent requirements for the skill are fulfilled; when the agents count for the skill is not fulfilled, allocating agents to work from home based on an associated Agent Home Productivity (AHP) score in descending order; Mclean does not specifically teach completing requirements of the shift after scheduling agents to work from office by scheduling agents to work from home; Therefore, neither Mclean nor Peters alone or combined, suggests or teaches allocating agents to office location based on office capacity and a calculated AWFO score in ascending order and AH score greater than ‘0’ until office capacity is full or agent requirements for the skill are fulfilled; when the agents count for the skill is not fulfilled, allocating agents to work from home based on an associated AHP score in descending order, as the current application does. [see Remarks pages 6-9]. With regard to argument (2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner Note
***The Examiner notes that the claimed contents of Claims 1-8 amount to non-functional descriptive/titled/labeled material that do not functionally alter the claimed method. The recited method steps would be performed in the same manner regardless of what data is contained in the various “scores; AWFO; WFM; AHP; ASP; AH; value; ascending/descending order; greater than ‘0’; score is ‘1’”. These terms are subjective, meaning another entity or organization, for example, could want “agents” to have values and value ranges be “lowest AWFO score” or “highest”, etc. Thus, the prior art and the claimed invention have identical structure and the claimed descriptive material is insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean et al. (McLean) (US 8,078,486) in view of Peters et al. (Peters) (US 2020/0302934).
With regard to Claims 1, 4, McLean teaches a computerized-method for prioritizing agents for working from office via a Work Force Management application (workforce optimization; FIG. 4 shows a point of integration between the work force manager (WFM) and the quality monitor of FIG. 3), in a hybrid contact center work environment (a branch office may be considered a hybrid of a contact center and a back office; systems and methods; systems; workforce management; computer; workforce optimization) (see at least col. 1, line 53-col. 2, line 41, col. 6, line 42-col. 7, line 52, col. 18, lines 3-64), the computerized-method comprising:
when creating a schedule for a period, via the WFM application (scheduling and deploying a workforce) (see at least col. 1, line 53-col. 2, line 24, col. 6, line 42-col. 7, line 52, col. 18, lines 3-64):
getting one or more skills (the integrated workforce optimization platforms disclosed herein provide closed-loop systems for continuous performance improvement, that enable an organization to: establish realistic forecasts and performance goals; schedule and deploy the right number of staff with the appropriate skills; capture customer interactions in their entirety by recording all calls, or recording based on business rules, or on-demand, or randomly; measure performance to identify execution issues and excellence; analyze customer interactions to investigate opportunities for optimizing use of people, processes and technologies; take action by delivering targeted coaching, training or re-engineering processes; and/or refine forecasts and performance goals based on the collected data) for each day in the schedule (FIG. 8 shows a point of integration between the WFM 310 and the performance manager 340. Conventional schedulers allow agents to set preferences for shift assignments (e.g., one agent prefers to work week ends and another prefers to work nights). Since most agents are expected to prefer a day shift rather than a midnight shift, shift preferences are typically combined with agent ranking or seniority, so that someone works the midnight shift. This leads to a situation where the midnight shift is staffed with all of the “worst” agents), wherein each skill is having an associated priority (WFM 310 can: schedule single, multiple, or virtual contact centers across multiple time zones; accommodate a dedicated, blended, or task-switching environment; schedule meetings or training without impact on service levels; allow agents to bid for shifts and provide input into their schedules; automate compliance with government and union regulations; create centralized forecasts and schedules with a single point of control over the entire network, or decentralized schedules that allow for decision-making at individual sites; schedule based on skill priorities that align with the contact center’s routing strategy; and create and schedule teams as a unit to support training and accommodate employee preferences) (see at least col. 3, lines 29-42; col. 12, lines 11-19; col. line 7-col. 8, line 17);
(ii) allocating agents for each skill in descending order of priority associated to the skill by: for each skill that requires agents to work from office (WFM 310 can: schedule single, multiple, or virtual contact centers across multiple time zones; accommodate a dedicated, blended, or task-switching environment; schedule meetings or training without impact on service levels; allow agents to bid for shifts and provide input into their schedules; automate compliance with government and union regulations; create centralized forecasts and schedules with a single point of control over the entire network, or decentralized schedules that allow for decision-making at individual sites; schedule based on skill priorities that align with the contact center’s routing strategy; and create and schedule teams as a unit to support training and accommodate employee preferences) (see at least col. 3, lines 29-42; col. 12, lines 11-19; col. line 7-col. 8, line 17):
a. getting forecast agents count for the skill (WFM 310 can: schedule single, multiple, or virtual contact centers across multiple time zones; accommodate a dedicated, blended, or task-switching environment; schedule meetings or training without impact on service levels; allow agents to bid for shifts and provide input into their schedules; automate compliance with government and union regulations; create centralized forecasts and schedules with a single point of control over the entire network, or decentralized schedules that allow for decision-making at individual sites; schedule based on skill priorities that align with the contact center’s routing strategy; and create and schedule teams as a unit to support training and accommodate employee preferences) (see at least col. 3, lines 29-42; col. 12, lines 11-19; col. line 7-col. 8, line 17);
b. allocating agents to office location based on office capacity (Information about the goals and campaign(s) produced by the first stage (210) is provided to the second stage (220). In the second stage (220), a workforce of agents is scheduled to staff the campaign(s). In determining the number of agents scheduled for a campaign, the goals/metrics and campaign characteristics from the first stage (210) are considered. The schedule also uses as input a workload forecast, which predicts contact volume during each interval of the campaign, based on historical data. Using this schedule, the contact center manager deploys the appropriate number and mix of agents during the campaign times) and a calculated Agent Work From Office (AWFO) score in ascending order and Agent Health (AH) score greater than ‘0’ until office capacity is full or agent requirements for the skill are fulfilled ((The functionality of the entire WFM 310 is typically divided among several applications, executables, processes, or services. A forecast and scheduling component (350) calculates staffing levels and agent schedules based on historical interaction (contact) patterns. A tracking component (355) provides a contact center supervisor or manager with information about agent activities and agent-customer interactions, both historical and real-time. An adherence component (360) supplies the supervisor with information on how well each agent complies with call center policies. For example, once schedules are created, the contact center should ensure that agents follow the schedules; the adherence component 360 provides a real-time view of every activity across each channel in the contact center, including those in the front and back office, so supervisors/contact centers can see how their staff spends its time. In an enhancement, alerts can be set to notify supervisors when agents are out-of-adherence and exception management can help ensure agents are correctly recognized for work they have performed; displays key performance indicators (KPIs), which can be predefined on a scorecard; interface) (see at least col. 6, line 59-col. 7, line 2; col. 8, lines 6-49; col. 9, lines 18-29);
when the agents count for the skill is not fulfilled, based on an associated Agent Home Productivity (AHP) score in descending order (FIG. 8 shows a point of integration between the WFM 310 and the performance manager 340. Conventional schedulers allow agents to set preferences for shift assignments (e.g., one agent prefers to work week ends and another prefers to work nights). Since most agents are expected to prefer a day shift rather than a midnight shift, shift preferences are typically combined with agent ranking or seniority, so that someone works the midnight shift. This leads to a situation where the midnight shift is staffed with all of the “worst” agents), wherein each skill is having an associated priority (WFM 310 can: schedule single, multiple, or virtual contact centers across multiple time zones; accommodate a dedicated, blended, or task-switching environment; schedule meetings or training without impact on service levels; allow agents to bid for shifts and provide input into their schedules; automate compliance with government and union regulations; create centralized forecasts and schedules with a single point of control over the entire network, or decentralized schedules that allow for decision-making at individual sites; schedule based on skill priorities that align with the contact center’s routing strategy; and create and schedule teams as a unit to support training and accommodate employee preferences) (see at least col. 3, lines 29-42; col. 12, lines 11-19; col. line 7-col. 8, line 17);
when the skill doesn’t require agents to work from office, based on the associated AHP score in descending order (FIG. 8 shows a point of integration between the WFM 310 and the performance manager 340. Conventional schedulers allow agents to set preferences for shift assignments (e.g., one agent prefers to work week ends and another prefers to work nights). Since most agents are expected to prefer a day shift rather than a midnight shift, shift preferences are typically combined with agent ranking or seniority, so that someone works the midnight shift. This leads to a situation where the midnight shift is staffed with all of the “worst” agents),; (WFM 310 can: schedule single, multiple, or virtual contact centers across multiple time zones; accommodate a dedicated, blended, or task-switching environment; schedule meetings or training without impact on service levels; allow agents to bid for shifts and provide input into their schedules; automate compliance with government and union regulations; create centralized forecasts and schedules with a single point of control over the entire network, or decentralized schedules that allow for decision-making at individual sites; schedule based on skill priorities that align with the contact center’s routing strategy; and create and schedule teams as a unit to support training and accommodate employee preferences) (see at least col. 3, lines 29-42; col. 12, lines 11-19; col. line 7-col. 8, line 17);
wherein the AWFO score and the AHP score are calculated by: operating an Agent Work From Office (AWFO) Prioritization Analytics module, said AWFO Prioritization Analytics module comprising: for each agent in the data store of agents’ metrics: calculating an Agent Health (AH) score (scorecards; quality monitoring scores; agent test score) of the agent to be considered to work from office (allow agents to set preferences for shift assignments (e.g., one agent prefers to work weekends and another prefers to work nights)) (see at least col. 3, lines 5-28, col. 4, lines 4-12, col. 12, lines 4-62); when the AH score is ‘1’ then (The functionality of the entire WFM 310 is typically divided among several applications, executables, processes, or services. A forecast and scheduling component (350) calculates staffing levels and agent schedules based on historical interaction (contact) patterns. A tracking component (355) provides a contact center supervisor or manager with information about agent activities and agent-customer interactions, both historical and real-time. An adherence component (360) supplies the supervisor with information on how well each agent complies with call center policies. For example, once schedules are created, the contact center should ensure that agents follow the schedules; the adherence component 360 provides a real-time view of every activity across each channel in the contact center, including those in the front and back office, so supervisors/contact centers can see how their staff spends its time. In an enhancement, alerts can be set to notify supervisors when agents are out-of-adherence and exception management can help ensure agents are correctly recognized for work they have performed; displays key performance indicators (KPIs), which can be predefined on a scorecard; interface), (The WFM 310 performs many functions related to the agent workforce. For example, WFM 310 can: schedule single, multiple, or virtual contact centers across multiple time zones; accommodate a dedicated, blended, or task-switching environment; schedule meetings or training without impact on service levels; allow agents to bid for shifts and provide input into their schedules; automate compliance with government and union regulations; create centralized forecasts and schedules with a single point of control over the entire network, or decentralized schedules that allow for decision-making at individual sites; schedule based on skill priorities that align with the contact center’s routing strategy; and create and schedule teams as a unit to support training and accommodate employee preferences) (see at least col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 8, lines 6-49; col. 9, lines 18-29): calculating:
AHP score (see at least col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 8, lines 6-49; col. 9, lines 18-29);
(ii) Agent Skills Prioritization (ASP) score (see at least col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 8, lines 6-49; col. 9, lines 18-29);
and (iii) agent’s preferences to work from office indicator; and determining an AWFO score based on the AHP score, the ASP score and the agent’s preferences to work from office indicator (see at least col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 8, lines 6-49; col. 9, lines 18-29);
McLean does not specifically teach by scheduling agents to work from home. Peters teaches by allocating agents to work from home (the scheduling engine 134 may also be configured to monitor schedule adherence, social media activity, and the like, and the WFM module 130 may enable shift bidding, schedule adjustments, work-at-home resource re-scheduling) in analogous art of schedule human agents, e.g., resources for the purposes of: “the forecasting engine 132 may automatically identify future resource availability issues (in the short-term or long-term) and notify the scheduling engine 134, thereby enabling the scheduling engine 134 to adjust the scheduling of resources 112 as necessary” (see at least paragraphs 30-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the hybrid architecture for transcription of real-time audio based on event data between on-premises system and cloud-based advanced audio processing system as taught by Peters in the system of McLean, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With regard to Claim 2, McLean teaches wherein the calculating of AH score is operated by retrieving agent's health metrics from the data store of agents' metrics and comparing with government and organization rules and regulations (see at least col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5).
With regard to Claim 3, McLean teaches wherein the calculating of AHP score is operated by summing a preconfigured one or more agent Key Performance Indicator (KPI)scores, wherein each KPI is per skill of the agent (see at least col. 3, line 56-col. 4, line 3).
With regard to Claim 4, McLean teaches wherein the one or more agent KPIs are calculated per skill based on formula I:
Agent KPI score=(Agent KPI−Minimum KPI)/(Maximum KPI−Minimum KPI), (I) whereby: Agent KPI is an agent KPI score per skill during work, Minimum KPI is a minimum KPI score of all agents having same skills as the agent, and Maximum KPI is a maximum KPI score of all agents having same skills as the agent (see at least col. 11, line 43-col. 12, line 46).
With regard to Claim 5, McLean teaches wherein the calculating of ASP score is operated by counting number of agent skills that have been attributed as work from office (see at least col. 12, lines 35-60).
With regard to Claim 6, McLean teaches wherein the calculating of agent's preferences to work from office indicator is when the AHP score is above a preconfigured threshold (see at least col. 11, lines 51-65).
With regard to Claim 7, McLean teaches wherein the AWFO score is determined by formula II:
AWFO Score=W.sub.1*AHP score−W.sub.2*ASP score−W.sub.3*Agent preference to work from home indicator*Counter (II) whereby counter is a preconfigured value, and W.sub.1, W.sub.2, W.sub.3 are preconfigured weights (see at least col. 7, line 44-col. 8, line 17, col. 16, lines 1-30, col. 15, lines 62-67).
With regard to Claim 8, McLean teaches wherein after an agent is selected to work from office the agent's preferences to work from office indicator is reset to zero to ensure rotational basis of agents (see at least col. 3, lines 5-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Delo (US 2021/0110329)
McGann et al. (CN 112671823 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624