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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on October 29, 2025 for the patent application 18/378,714 originally filed on October 11, 2023. Claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 12 are pending. The first office action of February 11, 2025; the second office action of March 26, 2025; and the third office action of June 30, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-10 and 12 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 1 is are directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “consistently identifying an agent for a coaching session, and assessing relevant coaching subject to the coaching session,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per Claim 1
“(i) receiving a list of one or more agents having one or more Key Performance Indicators (KPI)s below a first preconfigured threshold during a preconfigured period to yield a list of agents-for-coaching from a Project Management (PM) component;
for each agent in the list of agents-for-coaching:
(ii) receiving focus area and related behaviors for the one or more KPIs below the first preconfigured threshold;
(iii) retrieving interactions and associated one or more categories and behaviors during the preconfigured period from an interactions analytics component;
(iv) retrieving evaluations of the retrieved interactions that are below a second preconfigured threshold during the preconfigured period, and related interactions from a Quality Management (QM) service;
(v) marking each category of the one or more categories associated to each interaction that is having an evaluation below the second preconfigured threshold to yield a list of marked categories-for-coaching;
(vi) retrieving a preconfigured associated focus area for each category in the list of marked categories-for-coaching that is classified as negative, wherein each focus area has preconfigured one or more behaviors;
(vii) determining a first preconfigured number of categories for the coaching session;
(viii) identifying behaviors from interactions related to the determined first preconfigured number of categories for the coaching session based on the retrieved preconfigured associated focus area of the first preconfigured number of categories for the coaching session and based on a preconfigured mapping of categories to focus areas and each focus area of the focus areas to one or more behaviors;
(ix) determining a second preconfigured number of behaviors from the identified behaviors for the coaching session;
(x) calculating a co-relation score for each behavior in the second preconfigured number of behaviors and associated focus area and sorting the behaviors in descending order based on the calculated co-relation score; and (xi) selecting a third preconfigured number of behaviors and associated focus area having highest co-relation score and scheduling a coaching session with the selected third preconfigured number of behaviors and associated focus area having highest co- relation score to the agent, wherein when no evaluations of the retrieved interactions that are below a second preconfigured threshold during the preconfigured period are received, the agent is removed from the list of agents-for-coaching.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a computerized-device,” (per claim 10) is merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “consistently identifying an agent for a coaching session, and assessing relevant coaching subject to the coaching session,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computerized-device,” (per claim 10) is claimed, this is a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element. As evidence that this is a generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses this in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computerized-device,” (per claim 10) is described in paras. [0019] and [0062] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, with no technical details. At best, the element is a generic computer device among many that are commercially available today. As such, the Applicant’s own specification discloses in claim 10 a piece of ubiquitous standard equipment that is commercially available and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, claims 7-8 contain the following mathematical formulas:
Per claim 7
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the calculated co-relation score for each behavior and associated focus area in the determined second preconfigured number of behaviors for the coaching session is based on an inversed normalized score for the behavior, and wherein the inversed normalized score is calculated by:
inversed normalized score = (max preconfigured score - average score) * (100 / max preconfigured score)
whereby,
max preconfigured score is a maximum score for the behavior, and average score is an average score of the behavior during the preconfigured period.
Per claim 8
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the calculating of the co-relation score for each behavior and associated focus area in the determined second preconfigured number of behaviors for the coaching session is calculated by:
co-relation score = (median score of focus area * focus-area-weight) + (average score of behavior * behavior-weight),
whereby: median score of focus area is a median score of preconfigured mapped categories to the focus area, focus-area-weight is a preconfigured weight, average score of behavior is the calculated inversed normalized score of the behavior, and behavior-weight is a preconfigured weight.
These limitations can be further classified as an abstract idea pertaining to “mathematical relationships or formulas,” since the Applicant's claims can be practiced as Mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations. A relevant example would be: “organizing information through mathematical correlations” (i.e. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, it is reasonable to classify these limitations as a further abstract idea pertaining to “mathematical relationships or formulas." Hence, these limitations are further akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. As such, dependent claims 2-10 and 12 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on October 29, 2025 related to claims 1-10 and 12 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Specification
The Applicant respectfully argues “
The abstract of the specification has been objected to because of the length. The Applicant has amended the abstract in the response to the previous Office Action to include 150 words. Thus, the abstract does not exceed the 150 limit of 37 C.F.R § 1.72(b).”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
The Applicant respectfully argues “the claim elements provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea info a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicants argument of “to transform the abstract idea info a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself” is conclusory. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “
Moreover, the Applicant asserts that the claims are patent-eligible because the claimed invention is not "directed to" an abstract idea under step 2A of the patent-eligibility test. The Applicant asserts that a coaching session with the selected third preconfigured number of behaviors and associated focus area having highest co-relation score to the agent is being scheduled. The agent is consistently identified for the coaching session, and relevant coaching subject to the coaching session is assessed. Also, when no evaluations of the retrieved interactions that are below a second preconfigured threshold during the preconfigured period are received, the agent is removed from the list of agents-for-coaching.
As previously argued, the Applicant asserts that Claim 1 includes a link of the use of the alleged judicial exception to the particular technological environment, by calculating a co-relation score for each behavior and associated focus area and selecting behaviors and associated focus area having highest co-relation score and scheduling a coaching session with the selected third preconfigured number of behaviors and associated focus area having highest co-relation score to the agent, integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the above-mentioned additional elements represent a practical application, and any allegedly abstract elements recited in Applicant's claims are integrated into this practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously argued in the office action mailed on June 30, 2025, the Applicant’s argument continues to be misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a);
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
• 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• 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 uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first four bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “
Claims 2-10 and 12 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and therefore include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 2- 10 and 12, are likewise allowable. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections to independent claim 1 and to claims 2-10 and 12, depended therefrom.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12 under 35 USC 101 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 2-10 and 12 do not cure claim 1 to overcome the subject-matter eligibility rejection. As such, the Applicant's arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC §101 are not persuasive and the rejections will not be withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715