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 filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims describe a technological improvement to contact center scheduling systems. The Examiner disagrees. The improvement Applicant refers to occurs due to the use of the machine learning model. Applicant’s invention does not improve the model but merely realizes the advantages of using the model. This is not an improvement to technology as much as it is a business improvement.
Applicant further argues, “The specification describes the technical problem addressed by this improvement. As explained in the specification, "[c]onventional systems typically require that an agent make a schedule change request and then have the request evaluated by a shift supervisor," and "in deciding whether to approve the request, it is virtually impossible for the supervisor to make an informed and timely decision given the many variables that have to be considered." Specification, para. [0046]. The specification further explains that conventional approaches fail "to recognize real-time cost-effective opportunities to incentivize agents" because "both supervisors and agents lack| necessary information." Id. The claimed invention addresses this technical problem through an automated real-time scheduling system that uses a trained predictive model to make informed decisions that were previously impossible for human supervisors to make in a timely manner.” The need for an agent to make a schedule change request and then have the request evaluated by a shift supervisor and said supervisor deciding whether to approve the request, is not a problem rooted in computer technology. Nor is the need for a supervisor to make an informed decision, a problem rooted in computer technology. What Applicant has invented is a business improvement to a problem unrooted in computer technology, using a trained computer model to assist with scheduling decisions.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
receiving a workload forecast for the current shift in real-time;
receiving a staffing plan listing current agents assigned to work during the current shift;
receiving data describing a service level target, the service level target defining a performance metric and a satisfying threshold score in relation to the performance metric;
receiving data describing types of the scheduling modifications;
executing a valuation routine for determining a value of points available to the current agents for trading in exchange for the scheduling modifications, the valuation routine comprising:
performing executing a valuation routine for determining a value of points earned by the current agents in relation to the current agents for trading the points in exchange for receiving the scheduling perks during the current shift; and
measuring a performance of the current agents in relation to the performance metric during the transpired portion of the current shift and storing the measured performance as current shift performance data;
providing the staffing plan, the workload forecast, and the current shift performance data as inputs;
determining, in near real-time, an actual forecasted target adherence indicative of achieving the threshold score for the service level target for the current shift;
determining a valuation parameter by comparing the actual forecasted target adherence against a threshold defined by the acceptable forecasted target adherence; the valuation parameter indicative of how much the actual forecasted target adherence exceeds the acceptable forecasted target adherence;
assigning the value of points according to a directly proportional relationship with the valuation parameter;
performing executing an offer routine whereby the scheduling modifications are offered in real- time to one or more of the current agents per the determined value of the points;
receiving, from a user associated with one of the current agents, a selection to trade a number of the points for one of the scheduling modifications; and
in response to the selection, automatically updating the staffing plan for the remaining portion of the current shift to reflect that the work schedule of the one of the current agents includes the scheduling modification
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) 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)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “processor, memory, user device, a trained predictive model, and computer”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, processor, user device, a trained predictive model, memory and computer. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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);
- (processor, memory, user device, trained predictive model and computer)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(a trained predictive model and machine learning model)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) 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. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; Although claim 2 describes user devices, 2-4, 6, 9, 19-21 describe electronic communication, 17-user device, supervisor and contact center these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights